Talk:Truvia

Allergy section removed

An allergy by definition is an immunological response to a peptide (a string of amino acids). It is biologically impossible to be allergic to anything other than a peptide so I removed the section about allergies to Truvia. It is impossible to be allergic to the Truvia molecule. There may be issues of intolerance (which are not allergies) and maybe someone can include that but it is confusing and wholly inaccurate to claim people are allergic to Truvia. It demonstrates a lack of basic immunology and perpetuates myths about the human body. The source used is not credible and is a whimsical book about nutrition written by somebody who lacks any medical training or education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.199.86.185 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

(I moved the following comment from my talk page to here. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

Hi. I would like to ask you to reconsider your view on the inclusion of the critisisms section in the Truvia entry. I do not wish to be involved in an edit war so I would like to offer my reasons why I feel this is a notable addition to this entry.

1 - Oliver Thring is a respected investigative journalist who specialises in Food. He has appeared on both BBC television and BBC radio in addition to being a journalist for Guardian Newspapers amongst others. His credentials should make him a good source for this entry

2 - The article in question cites many sources. Many of the citations are either factual or peer reviewed in their own right. For example,

• College of Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University,
• Development of rebiana, a natural, non-caloric sweetener I. Prakasha, , , G.E. DuBoisa, J.F. Closa, K.L. Wilkensa, L.E. Fosdickb
• Independent Newspaper
• Coca Colas own patent
• World Health Organisation
• Immune up regulatory response of a non-caloric natural sweetener, stevioside. Sehar I, Kaul A, Bani S, Pal HC, Saxena AK.
  

3 - Wikipedia:Verifiability allows the inclusion of Newspaper Blogs as citations when the writers are profesionals. And whilst Newspapers own blogs may not be as thoroughly fact checked, the inclusion of cited sources for this article should mean that this meets the requirements for Verifiability.

As I said, I do not wish to get involved in an edit war but I do feel that this is relivant information to this entry. Munta (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The source in question is http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/dec/14/sugar-subsititutes-sweet-and-sour

There are several problems with this source. I removed the section for these reasons:

• The author Oliver Thring, according to his byline, "writes mainly about food, drink and travel". He may be a journalist, but he doesn't appear to be an investigative journalist. He certainly isn't a notable critic, in that his criticisms haven't attracted secondary coverage worthy of note.
• The blog article isn't journalism, it's his own synthesis of readings from other sources, and as such he expresses personal opinions that are not meaningful to cite.
• The links in the blog article, where they point to reliable sources such as peer reviewed literature, do not qualify as "criticism" of Truvia. If any such sources do levy criticism, then they should be cited directly, not indirectly through somebody's blog.
• Links in the blog article that point to forum discussions or other blogs aren't worthy of referencing, and a collection of them doesn't qualify as a critique.

We should try to avoid criticism sections. Even so, there is no problem including valid criticism of Truvia, if such criticism exists without being personal opinion or synthesis. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. I'll see if there are better references I can find. Munta (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Amatulic's criticisms that this is not a reliable source for citing, say, scientific material, but I would disagree with his conclusions, and assert this source can still be used as a notable criticism of Truvia. Guardian-hosted blogs are not just any old blogs, I think they have a much higher standard of editorial integrity than something self-published. WP:RS reads "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" - Oliver Thring is a professional food columnist, and an artificial sweetener is well within the range of the topics he focuses on in his professional career. I think this source is perfectly acceptable for sourcing criticisms of Truvia, but I think we need to exercise caution about what exactly sort of statements it is used to source. If we're going to delve into medical or scientific issues, these need scientific sources. Cazort (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. He may be a professional food columnist, but his failed attempts to sound scientifically knowledgeable call his competence into question. His personal opinions about Truvia are irrelevant, particularly when the few reliable sources he cites do not support his point of view. His own synthesized conclusions are unworthy of referencing, and until he gets secondary coverage for his criticism, his criticism cannot be considered "notable" by any stretch. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is he saying that make you question his competence? The piece cited seems, in my opinion, to pretty clearly distinguish scientific work from speculative discussion, and from anecdotal reports. And I don't see how he is mis-citing, can you give examples of this? Cazort (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

New source, new name for section

I re-added a section discussing criticisms or safety and health concerns, but I renamed the section "Safety and health effects", rather than "Criticism", to be more WP:NPOV. I cited a piece that is more science-based and is published by a well-known and notable watchdog group. I think this would serve as a good start, but I would encourage others to find more sources as well, this way we do not have to rely on marginal or controversial sources like the guardian article discussed above. Cazort (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources hosted on Truvia's website

I notice that the article, in its current form, relies on several sources hosted on Truvia's website. I do not think this is ideal, as there is a conflict of interest, in that any company profiting from the sale of Truvia has an interest in depicting this substance as safe. As such I would prefer removing all these sources, except when used to source statements of what a company is claiming or what wording they are using in their marketing. If the pages on the Truvia site cite reliable sources, these source can be cited directly. If they don't, then I think they are not adequate for sourcing scientific statements. Cazort (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Center for Science in the Public Interest

The following paragraph seems to be entirely based on a 2008 newsletter article from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI):

A report by Center for Science in the Public Interest, based on work by UCLA toxicologists, notes that Truvia is over 95% rebaudioside A (rebiana), and notes that rebiana is chemically similar to stevioside (both consist of glucose molecules attached to a steviol structure), and that stevioside is known to cause DNA damage in rats. This report also noted that two studies on rats, funded by Cargill, found no evidence of any fertility impairment or any effect on blood sugar levels, even in rats fed very high doses of rebiana.

That statement, and the newsletter article from which it derives, is plainly false. Truvia and other "stevia blend" sweeteners are mostly erythritol, not 95% Reb A. That is easily verified by examining the ingredients list (on the web or on the package), which lists Erythritol first, and "stevia leaf extract" or "Reb A" second. (Food manufacturers in the USA are required by law to list ingredients in decreasing order of constituent percentage, by weight.)

The CSPI is a controversial Nader-spinoff advocacy organization, not a news organization or scholarly publication. They are up-front about their mission as an advocacy organization: the first sentence of the "about" page on their web site calls them "a strong advocate." I'm no expert on Wikipedia rules, but surely the CSPI's newsletter cannot be considered an encyclopedic Reliable Source, especially not for medical claims, right?

Perhaps the "95% Reb A" claim is a corruption of the fact that most of the sweetening effect of stevia blend sweeteners comes from the small percentage of Reb A in the product. Or maybe the CSPI just accidentally swapped the percentages of Reb A and erythritol in their article. Either way, the claim is clearly untrue, and CSPI wasn't very careful about checking the facts. WP:RS says that such sources "are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims... against institutions..." (which would include Cargill).

There's also irony in the fact that the 2nd sentence of the paragraph in question mentions "funded by Cargill" to cast doubt on the rat studies, but fails to mention that the "work by UCLA toxicologists" cited in the first sentence was commissioned by CSPI, themselves!

Moreover, the "work" in question was not original research. It was simply a literature review, conducted mainly by a graduate student. As far as I can tell, it was never published in any peer-reviewed journal, and was published only by CSPI, themselves, on their web site.

I'm going to delete the CSPI paragraph. Some of the material might be worth restoring, if a Reliable Source can be found for it, but the "95%" part is obviously wrong as written, and I have little confidence in the rest. NCdave (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Accepted Daily Intake = ADI of Truvia??

What does manufacturer of Truvia, or FDA, or European Union say, how much Truvia is OK per human or per kilogram of human?

Perhaps you could add least this to article: http://truvia.com/health/qa ADI = 29 sachets = 58 teaspoons for entire life.

ee1518 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-nutritive vs. non-caloric sweetener

I know this is pretty jargon-y and pedantic, but sugar has no nutritional value. I think when you say non-nutritive what you're really talking about is calories in the general sense that it is used; however, calories are not indicative of nutritional value. For example, vitamins/minerals have no calories, yet they have nutritional value (evidenced by their RDAs). Sugar on the other hand has calories, but no nutritional value, and thus no RDA. Changing all instances of non-nutritive to non-caloric or zero-calorie is a lot more clear and correct, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db0255 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Factual inconsistencies

Hello. I've noticed several factual errors on this page and would like to propose the following edits:

1. Ingredients: The page says that Truvia is made of rebiana, but it is actually made with stevia leaf extract.
2. Sales: The page says that Truvia is the third best-selling sugar substitute in the U.S. behind Splenda and Sweet'n Low; however, it is now the second best-selling sugar substitute in the U.S. behind Splenda and ahead of Sweet'n Low.
3. Food ingredient: The page says that Truvia is used as a sweetener in drinks and links to a dead page. Instead, it should say that Truvia stevia leaf extract is used to sweeten and reduce calories in many products found on grocery store shelves, and Truvia sweetener can also be used to create zero-calorie simple syrups for use in reduced-calorie cocktails.
4. Availability worldwide: The page says that Truvia sweetener is available in Europe; it is also available in Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.

Ks950 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ks950:

1. Rebiana is the trade name for Rebaudioside A, the stevia extract that Truvia is made from. We wouldn't cite everydayhealth.com for claims about the product. In this case, the primary source truvia.com is preferable for ingredient claims it makes about itself, although I agree the article should mention the actual name of the extract rather than just the trade name.
2. Feel free to update the part of the article about sales, unless you are posting your comments because you have a conflict of interest. Please let us know.
3. We do not cite prnewswire in Wikipedia articles, because press releases are not independent of the subject. If you find a dead link, please try to find an archived version of the dead page on archive.org and replace the link in the article.
4. Similarly while foodnavigator-usa.com may be a reliable source in general, in this case the article is all about an interview with a Truvia executive making well-meaning but unsubstantiated claims about the product. We couldn't use that source either.

~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Safety of "natural flavors" in Truvia is completely unproven?

There are ZERO published human safety studies on Truvia! Only individual components, like erythritol has been tested. But safety of your secret "natural flavors" has NEVER been proven? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=truvia

Also this page contains almost zero information about natural flavors in Truvia: https://www.truvia.com/faq

--ee1518 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Both principal components of Truvia - erythritol and stevia - have FDA GRAS (safe) status for food manufacturing in the United States, evidence that is typically accepted worldwide. Stevia flavor is interpreted differently across people, so flavor characteristics are difficult to describe quantitatively for the encyclopedia. We shouldn't write about what the Cargill marketing material says about 'natural' taste, which is misleading because Truvia is highly manufactured (not natural). --Zefr (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Weight units

Apologies, I am from outside the US (and novice Wikipedia) and am confused by the weight units 'ct'. What is ct? Is there a Wikipedia guideline that some standard units should be used (or referred to) to avoid confusion for users of the SI system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.126.81 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)