cheese cake

[welshy1981]

any1 got a good low fat recipe coz this is 1 of my fav foods but dont want to keep eating it when it's gonna put bad weight on any strawberry or rasberry 1s would be great

[Sadie]

isnt that some kind of oximoron hehe healthy...cheesecake hehe

[Xanthine]

Oh man I am starving...dieting sucks enough without having cheese cake fantasies!!!

[paullyd99]

Can't attest as to how good these are b/c I haven't tried them, but hopefully they will help. And I definately agree with Sadie, "healthy" and "cheesecake" make an ackward couple. But here ya go:

Chocolate Cheese Cake:

Nonstick cooking spray
1 cup low-fat chocolate wafer cookie crumbs (from about 3 cups)
1 tablespoon plus 1 cup brown sugar
1 tablespoon canola oil
1 tablespoon instant espresso, dissolved in 2 teaspoons water
12 ounces light cream cheese
24 ounces non-fat cottage cheese
1/4 cup cornstarch
1 egg
2 egg whites
3/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/4 cup sugar substitute (recommended: Splenda)
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 ounces bittersweet chocolate, melted

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.
Line the inside of a springform pan with aluminum foil and smooth out as much as possible. Once lined, spray the inside with cooking spray. In a food processor, combine cookie crumbs, 1 tablespoon brown sugar, oil, and coffee and blend well. Press into the bottom of the prepared pan, and set aside.

In a food processor, combine cream cheese, cottage cheese, cornstarch, egg, and egg whites until very smooth. Add cocoa powder, brown sugar, sugar substitute, vanilla, and salt and puree until smooth. Finally, add melted chocolate and puree until smooth. Blend well and then pour into crust-lined pan. Place pan in a shallow baking dish and place in oven. Carefully pour enough water into pan to come up halfway up the sides of the cheesecake pan. Bake until edges are firm, about 1 hour. Turn oven off and let cake cool in the oven for 1 hour. Refrigerate, uncovered, until chilled, at least 3 hours.


Nutrition Information
Nutritional Analysis per serving Calories 264
Fat 10 grams Saturated Fat 5 grams
Carbohydrates 36 grams Fiber 3 grams

[paullyd99]

Chocolate Truffle Cheesecake

Crust:
1 cup chocolate wafer crumbs (about 20 wafers)
1 tablespoon brown sugar
1 tablespoon canola oil
1 teaspoon instant coffee granules dissolved in 2 teaspoons hot water
Filling:
24 ounces 1% cottage cheese (3 cups)
12 ounces reduced-fat cream cheese (1 1/2 cups), cut into pieces
1 cup packed brown sugar
1/2 cup granulated sugar
3/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
1/4 cup cornstarch
1 large egg
2 large egg whites
2 tablespoons instant coffee granules dissolved in 2 tablespoons hot water
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 ounces bittersweet (not unsweetened) chocolate, melted
16 chocolate-covered coffee beans (optional)


Preheat oven to 325°F. Put a kettle of water on to heat for the water bath. Spray a 9-inch springform pan with cooking spray. Wrap the outside bottom of the pan with a double thickness of foil.
To prepare crust: Blend crumbs, sugar, oil and coffee in a small bowl with a fork or your fingertips. Press into the bottom of the pan.

To prepare filling: Puree cottage cheese in a food processor until very smooth, stopping once or twice to scrape down the sides. Add cream cheese, brown sugar, granulated sugar, cocoa and cornstarch. Process until smooth. Add egg, egg whites, coffee, vanilla, salt and chocolate and blend well. Pour into the crust-lined pan.

Place the cheesecake in a roasting pan and pour in enough boiling water to come 1/2 inch up the side of the springform pan.

Bake the cheesecake until the edges are set but the center still jiggles, about 50 minutes. Turn off the oven. Spray a knife with cooking spray and run it around the edge of the pan. Let stand in the oven, with the door ajar, for 1 hour. Transfer from the water bath to a wire rack; remove foil. Let cool to room temperature, about 2 hours. Refrigerate, uncovered, until chilled.

Before serving, garnish the cheesecake with chocolate-covered coffee beans, if using.



Nutrition Information
Nutritional Analysis Per serving Calories 228
Carbohydrate Servings 2 Carbohydrates 33 g
Protein 10 g Fat 8 g
Saturated Fat 4 g Cholesterol 27 g
Monounsaturated Fat 2 g Dietary Fiber 2 g
Sodium 310 mg Potassium 209 mg

[paullyd99]

Lemon Marble Cheesecake



For the lemon curd:
Grated zest of 1/2 lemon
1/3 cup strained lemon juice
5 tablespoons sugar
1 large egg
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
For the cheese cake:
1 cup sugar
2 cups (2 percent) lowfat small curd cottage cheese, drained at least 30 minutes in a strainer set over a bowl in the refrigerator
8 ounces Neufchatel Cream Cheese
3 large eggs
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
1 1/2 teaspoon strained lemon juice
1/4 teaspoon salt
3 to 4 tablespoons graham cracker or Zwieback crumbs or crushed Chocolate Cookies or gingersnaps

8-inch round pan with a solid bottom (no spring form), at least 2 inches deep.
Oven proof baking dish or skillet, at least 11 inches in diameter and 2 inches deep.
8-inch cardboard cake circle or pan bottom, optional


Make the lemon curd: Combine the lemon zest, juice, and sugar in a small saucepan and bring to a simmer. Meanwhile beat the egg until light in a small bowl. Beat some of the hot lemon mixture into the egg. Scrape the egg mixture back into the saucepan. Cook, stirring constantly and reaching all over the bottom and sides of the pan, until the mixture barely starts to simmer around the edges. Continue to cook and stir for about 15 seconds. Pour through a strainer set over a clean bowl. Stir in the vanilla. Cool to room temperature.
Make the cheesecake batter: Position rack in lower third of oven and preheat to 350 degrees. Place a round of parchment paper in the bottom of the cake pan and spray sides of pan with vegetable oil spray. Put water kettle on to boil for baking procedure.

Process the cottage cheese in a food processor for 2 1/2 to 3 minutes or until silky smooth, scraping the sides and bottom of the bowl once or twice as necessary. Set aside.

In a small microwave safe bowl, soften the Neufchatel cheese in microwave on high for about 30 seconds. Or, warm gently in the top of a double boiler. Stir until smooth. Scrape into the processor. Add the eggs, remaining sugar, vanilla, lemon juice, and salt. Pulse until incorporated and perfectly smooth. Do not over process.

Scrape the batter into the prepared pan. Distribute slightly rounded tablespoons of lemon curd evenly over the cheesecake batter. Using a table knife or teaspoon, use circular strokes to marble the batters until nicely but not to completely mingled.

Slide oven rack part way out. Place cheesecake pan in baking dish or skillet and set on oven rack. Carefully pour boiling water around the pan to a depth of about 1-inch. Slide oven rack in gently to avoid sloshing. Bake until cheesecake has puffed and risen slightly and is just beginning to shrink from the edges of the pan, about 40 to 45 minutes. Remove cheesecake from water bath and cool on a rack. When completely cool, cover and chill for at least 12 hours or up to 2 days before serving.

To unmold and serve: Cover the pan with tightly stretched plastic wrap. Place a flat dish on top of plastic. Invert pan and dish and rap the pan gently until cheesecake is released from pan. Remove pan and peel parchment liner from bottom of cake. Place cake circle or serving plate on the cake and carefully invert so that cake is right side up. Remove plastic wrap. Press crumbs around sides of cake. Cut with a sharp thin knife. Dip the knife in hot water and wipe it dry between cuts.


NUTRITIONAL DATA BASED ON 10 SERVINGS: 238 Calories; 8.3 grams fat (31 percent calories from fat); 11.2 grams protein; 30.5 grams carbohydrates; 106 milligrams cholesterol.
TIPS

The suave texture of this cheesecake relies on ultra smooth cottage cheese. This requires a food processor and at least 2 1/2 to 3 minutes of processing, no cheating.

Once the Neufchatel Cheese has been added, pulse only enough to incorporate. over processing thins the batter.

If you use nonfat cottage instead of low fat, the results will be not be nearly as good and you would save only about .4 grams of fat per serving. It's not worth it.

[paullyd99]

And here's a raspberry one fo ya...might have to try this one for myself; ricotta cheescakes kick ass:

Cooking spray
1 (15-ounce) container part-skim ricotta cheese
1/2 cup reduced fat sour cream
4 ounces Neufchatel cheese, or reduced fat cream cheese, softened
3 large eggs
3/4 cup sugar
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon finely grated orange zest
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup all-fruit seedless raspberry jam
1 tablespoon orange liqueur or water
2 (6-ounce) containers fresh raspberries

Preheat oven to 325 degrees F.
Coat a 9-inch springform pan with cooking spray. Place ricotta in a food processor and process until smooth and creamy. Add sour cream, Neufchatel, eggs, sugar, flour, vanilla, orange zest and salt. Process until well blended. Pour into the prepared pan and bake until the center is just set, 50 to 55 minutes. Transfer to a wire rack to cool and then cover and chill in the refrigerator for at least 3 hours.

In a small saucepan, bring the jam and liqueur or water to a boil, stirring constantly until smooth. Remove sides of pan. Brush the tart with the jam mixture and top with raspberries, flat-side down.


Nutrition Information
Nutritional Analysis per Serving Calories: 295
Total Fat: 13 grams Saturated Fat: 8 grams
Protein: 10 grams Carbohydrates: 36 grams
Fiber: 3 grams

[paullyd99]

BTW I'm going to go ahead and assume (due to my culinary ingenuity) that all of the above recipes that call for either sugar or brown sugar can be substituted with regular Splenda or brown sugar Splenda, thus making the final product even less caloric....God damn, I'm gooood

[T-Bone]

Stevia works even better than Splenda. A lot better for you as well.

[paullyd99]

Originally Posted by T-Bone

Stevia works even better than Splenda. A lot better for you as well.

Hasn't been approved by the FDA here in the states; splenda (sucralose) has. You can still get your hands on it, but you won't find too many recipes for it...

[mac83]

the last batch of protein i got was sweetened with stevia...u sure it's not approved?

[RAAM]

Hmm I'm pretty sure stevia is approved. I know I saw it at the health food store.

Nice recipies !

[paullyd99]

FDA Home Page | Search FDA Site | FDA A-Z Index | Contact FDA



FDA Consumer magazine
November - December 1999

This article contains revisions made in December 2004. It is no longer being updated and may contain information that is out of date. For current information on this topic, see "Artificial Sweeteners: No Calories ... Sweet!" on this Web site or check the FDA Consumer index.



Email this Page
To a Friend




Sugar Substitutes:
Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite
By John Henkel

"Sugar in the morning, sugar in the evening, sugar at suppertime ..."

The lyrics of that old song go a long way toward describing the cravings of many Americans. A bowl of sugary breakfast cereal may be followed by a mid-morning donut, a lunch time soda, ice cream at supper, and, in between, snacks of pudding, pie or pastry. Not to mention all the goodies that are part of Valentine's Day, Halloween, and the year-end holiday season. It all adds up to one massive national sweet tooth.

So much so that the average American eats the equivalent of 20 teaspoons of sugar a day, according to figures from the most recent federal Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (1994-1996). Nearly 60 percent of this intake, says the trade group The Sugar Association, is from corn sweeteners, used heavily in sodas and other sweetened drinks. Another 40 percent is from sucrose (table sugar), and a small amount comes from other sweeteners, such as honey and molasses.

There's nothing unusual about craving sweets, experts say. Humans naturally have an appetite for sugary things. But in excess, sugary foods can take a toll. Large quantities add up to surplus calories, which can contribute to weight gain. In order to lose weight, the total calories from foods, especially those with lots of calories from sugars as well as fats, must be decreased and physical activity increased. As a result, many consumers seeking to control their weight have turned to sugar substitutes as one way to help lower the daily calorie count without having to give up their favorite foods.

"Anything that can help people cut back on [excess] calories is good," says Adam Drewnowski, Ph.D., director of nutritional science at the University of Washington. He emphasizes that weight loss is complex and can't be attributed to any one food product. But existing studies, some of which he has conducted, show that sugar substitutes can help certain people maintain a weight loss. Because sugar substitutes, also called artificial sweeteners, are many times sweeter than sugar, it takes much less of them to create the same sweetness. The resulting calorie count of the amount used is negligible.

According to a 1998 survey by the Calorie Control Council, 144 million American adults regularly consume low-calorie, sugar-free products such as artificially sweetened sodas and desserts. The Food and Drug Administration has approved four sugar substitutes--saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose--for use in a variety of foods. At least three other sweeteners are under FDA review but had not been approved at press time.

Two approved sugar substitutes, saccharin and aspartame, have been the subject of ongoing controversy that, in the case of saccharin, dates back more than 20 years.

Aspartame has come under fire in recent years from individuals who have used the Internet in an attempt to link the sweetener to brain tumors and other serious disorders. But FDA stands behind its original approval of aspartame, and subsequent evaluations have shown that the product is safe. A tiny segment of the population is sensitive to one of the sweetener's byproducts and should restrict intake. However, the agency continually monitors safety information on food ingredients such as aspartame and may take action to protect public health if it receives credible scientific evidence indicating a safety problem.

Other organizations give aspartame and the other approved sugar substitutes a thumbs up. For example, the American Heart Association endorses their use by diabetics and those on weight-loss diets. The American Diabetes Association calls sugar substitutes "free foods" because they make food taste sweet, but they have essentially no calories and do not raise blood sugar levels.

More Than a Century of Use

The granddaddy of all sugar substitutes is saccharin. Discovered in 1879, it was used during both world wars to sweeten foods, helping to compensate for sugar shortages and rationing. It is 300 times sweeter than sugar.

An early attempt to ban saccharin came in 1911 when a board of federal scientists called the artificial sweetener "an adulterant" that should not be used in foods. This same board later decided to limit saccharin just to products "intended for invalids," a restriction that was lifted after World War I began.

In 1958, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which required premarket approval from FDA for food additives developed after 1958. This requirement did not apply to ingredients "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS. Saccharin was considered GRAS, so it remained on the market.

FDA began reviewing hundreds of GRAS substances--including saccharin--in the early 1970s to ensure that the latest scientific information continued to back up their safety. Studies in 1972 and 1973 of rats fed saccharin raised concerns about the sweetener's role in causing bladder cancer, but data analysis later suggested that impurities, not saccharin, may have caused the tumors.

Then in 1977, a Canadian study that looked specifically at the role of impurities--and of other suspected tumor causes, such as parasites in test animals--showed convincingly that saccharin itself was causing bladder cancer in rats. That same year, FDA proposed to ban saccharin for all uses except as an over-the-counter drug in the form of a tabletop sweetener. At the time, saccharin was the only available alternative to sugar.

The FDA proposal prompted a public outcry, fueled in part by media reports that the test rats were fed the equivalent of as many as 800 diet sodas a day. Congress responded by passing the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, which placed a two-year moratorium on any ban of the sweetener while additional safety studies were conducted. The law also required that any foods containing saccharin must carry a label that reads "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." Congress has extended the moratorium several times, most recently renewing it until 2002.

Saccharin has remained on the market and continues to have a fairly large appeal as a tabletop sweetener, particularly in restaurants, where it is available in single-serving packets under trade names such as Sweet 'n Low. Because it has a good shelf life, saccharin is used widely in fountain sodas, and its stability at high temperatures makes it an option for sweetening baked goods, unlike aspartame, which degrades when heated. Saccharin also is favored economically because it can be made inexpensively.

But given saccharin's continuing tentative status, should consumers use it? "We know for certain that it causes cancer in animals," says Andrew Laumbach, Ph.D., consumer safety officer in FDA's Office of Premarket Approval. He acknowledges, however, that animal studies do not always predict the behavior of a substance in the human body.

The National Cancer Institute states in its "Cancer Facts" documents that "epidemiological studies do not provide clear evidence" of a link to human cancer. Regina Ziegler, Ph.D., an NCI epidemiologist, says, "Typical intakes of saccharin at normal levels for adults show no evidence of a public health problem."

The government's National Toxicology Program has kept saccharin on its roster of "anticipated carcinogens," though it periodically considers "de-listing" the sweetener based on available safety evidence.

In the late 1970s FDA and NCI conducted a population-based study of saccharin's role in causing bladder cancer in humans and found that "in general," people who used the sweetener had no greater risk of bladder cancer than the population at large. However, the study found "suggestive evidence" that heavy saccharin users--defined as those using six or more servings of the sweetener a day--may have an increased risk. Laumbach says that for consumers who use saccharin, the key to a lower risk may be moderation, as is the case with many foods that can cause problems when eaten in excess. Other health groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Dietetic Association, agree that saccharin use is acceptable.

The Aspartame Controversy

While questions about saccharin may persist, the safety of another artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.

This message would not necessarily be apparent to consumers surfing the Internet, especially those who use Web-based search engines to find information about sugar substitutes or artificial sweeteners. Websites with screaming headlines and well-written text attempt to link aspartame consumption to systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, vision problems, headaches, fatigue, and even Alzheimer's disease. One report distributed nationally over e-mail systems claims that aspartame-sweetened soft drinks delivered to military personnel during the Persian Gulf War may have prompted Gulf War syndrome.

No way, says FDA, along with many other health organizations such as the American Medical Association. David Hattan, Ph.D., acting director of FDA's division of health effects evaluation, says there is no "credible evidence," to support, for example, a link between aspartame and multiple sclerosis or systemic lupus. Some Internet reports claim that patients suffering from both conditions went into remission after discontinuing aspartame use. "Both of these disorders are subject to spontaneous remissions and exacerbation," says Hattan. "So it is entirely possible that when patients stopped using aspartame they might also coincidentally have had remission of their symptoms."

It is true, says Hattan, that aspartame ingestion results in the production of methanol, formaldehyde and formate--substances that could be considered toxic at high doses. But the levels formed are modest, and substances such as methanol are found in higher amounts in common food products such as citrus juices and tomatoes.

Other circulating reports claim that two amino acids in aspartame--phenylalanine and aspartic acid--can cause neurotoxic effects such as brain damage. "This is true in certain individuals and in high enough doses," says Hattan. He explains that a very small group of people who have the rare hereditary disease phenylketonuria have to watch their intake from other sources as well. Women with certain genetic traits (e.g., phenylketonurics) may metabolize the amino acid, phenylalanine, poorly and thus accumulate far higher than normal blood levels of phenylalanine. During pregnancy, high maternal levels of blood phenylalanine can be transferred to the fetus and produce serious adverse effects on brain development. While the protein eaten by these pregnant women contributes most of the resulting elevation of phenylalanine, they should also be aware of the presence of phenylalanine in beverages and foods that contain aspartame. FDA requires all products containing aspartame to be labeled for phenylalanine so consumers will be aware of the substance's presence and can avoid or restrict it.

Aspartic acid also has the potential to cause brain damage at very high doses. But under normal intake levels, the brain's mechanism for controlling aspartic acid levels ensures no adverse effects. It is unlikely that any consumer would eat or drink enough aspartame to cause brain damage: FDA figures show that most aspartame users only consume about 4 to 7 percent of the acceptable daily intake the agency has set for the sweetener.

Still other reports attempt to link aspartame to seizures and birth defects. Regarding seizures, Hattan cites animal and human studies showing that the sweetener neither causes nor enhances the susceptibility of seizures. Aspartame also has been evaluated for its potential to cause reproductive effects or birth defects. Again, researchers found no evidence, even in test animals fed the sweetener at doses much higher than those to which humans would be exposed.

Approved in 1981, aspartame is 180 times sweeter than sugar. It is used in products such as beverages, breakfast cereals, desserts, and chewing gum, and also as a tabletop sweetener. In 1996, a study raised the issue that aspartame consumption may be related to an increase in brain tumors following FDA's approval of the sweetener in 1981. But analysis of the National Cancer Institute's database on cancer incidence showed that cases of brain cancers began increasing in 1973--well before aspartame was approved--and continued to increase through 1985. In recent years, brain tumor frequency has actually decreased slightly. NCI currently is studying aspartame and other dietary factors as part of a larger study of adult brain cancer.

Other Sweetener Choices

FDA also has approved two other artificial sweeteners, acesulfame potassium and sucralose, both of which are available in products such as fruit drinks and gelatin desserts.

Acesulfame Potassium: First approved in 1988 as a tabletop sweetener, acesulfame potassium, also called Sunett, is now approved for products such as baked goods, frozen desserts, candies, and, most recently, beverages. More than 90 studies verify the sweetener's safety.

About 200 times sweeter than sugar and calorie free, acesulfame potassium often is combined with other sweeteners. One major beverage maker mixes acesulfame potassium with aspartame to sweeten one of its diet sodas. Worldwide, the sweetener is used in more than 4,000 products, according to its manufacturer, Nutrinova. Acesulfame potassium has excellent shelf life and does not break down when cooked or baked.

Sucralose: Also known by its trade name, Splenda, sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar. After reviewing more than 110 animal and human safety studies conducted over 20 years, FDA approved it in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices, and gelatins. Earlier this year, FDA amended its regulation to allow sucralose as a general-purpose sweetener for all foods.

Sucralose tastes like sugar because it is made from table sugar. But it cannot be digested, so it adds no calories to food. Because sucralose is so much sweeter than sugar, it is bulked up with maltodextrin, a starchy powder, so it will measure more like sugar. It has good shelf life and doesn't degrade when exposed to heat. Numerous studies have shown that sucralose does not affect blood glucose levels, making it an option for diabetics.

Sugar Alcohols: Though not technically considered artificial sweeteners, sugar alcohols are slightly lower in calories than sugar and do not promote tooth decay or cause a sudden increase in blood glucose. They include sorbitol, xylitol, lactitol, mannitol, and maltitol and are used mainly to sweeten sugar-free candies, cookies, and chewing gums. FDA classifies some of these sweeteners as "generally recognized as safe" and others as approved food additives.

Other "natural sweeteners" are available, but these are variations of table sugar and contain about the same amount of calories. These products include honey, molasses, evaporated cane juice, rice syrup, barley malt, and fructose.

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 is safe." Under provisions of 1994 legislation, however, stevia can be sold as a "dietary supplement," though it cannot be promoted as a sweetener.

Three other sugar sweeteners are currently under FDA review. One of them, cyclamate, was marketed in the 1960s, but FDA banned it in 1970 after evidence emerged linking it to bladder cancer. Subsequent studies have failed to verify that link, so FDA is considering a petition to reapprove cyclamate. The other sweeteners under review are neotame and alitame.

Though sugar substitutes have a long history of controversy, the Calorie Control Council says Americans are continually searching for good-tasting, low-calorie products as part of a healthy lifestyle. Market surveys show that calorie-conscious consumers want more low-calorie foods and beverages. And though artificially sweetened products are not magic foods that will melt pounds away, they can be, experts say, a helpful part of an overall weight control program that includes exercise and other dietary factors.

[paullyd99]

Sorry for the long ass post, btw.

[paullyd99]

Lol another long-ass post...


FDA Threatened Celestial Tea Company over Use of Natural Sweetener Stevia
By David Gutierrez
NaturalNews.com, January 31 2008
Straight to the Source


The FDA has sent a warning letter to the Hain Celestial Group, instructing the natural and organic food producer to relabel certain products that contain the sweetener stevia. The letter concerned the Celestial Zingers To Go tea and drink mix products, which the FDA charges are being labeled and marketed as food products, even though an ingredient they contain -- the stevia herb -- has not been approved for use in foods in the United States.

Stevia, derived from a South American plant, has become popular as a sweetener because it has 300 times the sweetness of table sugar but almost no impact on blood glucose levels. Its taste is said to have a slower onset than that of sugar and to last longer.

Stevia has been approved for use in food and beverage products in a number of countries, including Brazil, Canada, China and Japan, but to date the FDA has only approved it as an ingredient in dietary supplements.

In response to the warning letter, Hain Celestial Group removed the term "iced tea mix" from all labels of the products in question, and made the words "herbal supplement" much more prominent.

In light of the increasing popularity of stevia and the fact that companies like Hain Celestial have apparently been trying to get around regulations of its use, the FDA said that it expects to soon receive a petition to approve the sweetener for use in foods. Reportedly, both the Coca-Cola Company and Cargill are interested in producing stevia-sweetened products, with Coca-Cola having filed 24 patent applications related to the sweetener.

But the FDA said that current information is not sufficient to prove stevia safe as an ingredient for food.

"Data and information necessary to support the safe use have been lacking," the FDA's letter to Hain Celestial read. "In fact, literature reports have raised safety concerns about the use of stevia, including concerns about control of blood sugar and the effects of reproductive, cardiovascular and renal systems."

Consumer health advocate Mike Adams, a long-time supporter of stevia, disagrees. "The FDA has been stalling on stevia approval for well over a decade in order to protect the profits of aspartame," Adams said. "Stevia is safely used around the world by hundreds of millions of consumers with absolutely no problems, while aspartame is tied to seizures, blindness, headaches and other serious neurological problems. The FDA once ordered the destruction of books containing stevia recipes. That's how desperate this criminal organization is to protect the profit racket of aspartame," Adams concluded.

[paullyd99]

So I think the jist of it is something like this....Stevia is a lot like a bong.

You can buy it no problem, but you just have to fib/conceal your true intent with it. You know how when you go into one of those "alternative" stores to purchase a bong, but you can't call it a bong...you have to make small talk with the clerk and ask to see that 3 foot glass-blown "water pipe" with the grateful dead bear insignia on it, but then proceed to say something like "Wow, this sure is a beautiful water pipe! Great craftsmanship!" To which the clerk will respond "Yes, this water pipe is perfect for all your tobacco and herbal tea-smoking needs." But if you waltz in there and say something like "Shit, I can probably fit a fucking 1/4 ounce of bud in this bong... this would be perfect to bring to the party tonight", you'll be denied the purchase and probably get thrown out while being mocked by the clearly-stoned clerk for assuming that they sell that type of paraphanalia.

So the metaphor is that you can buy stevia no problem, just don't you dare go sweetening anything with it; ya hear?!