“compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea to many, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying….” – Stanford University

In 1970 a book called Population Resources Environment; Issues in Human Ecology was published by Stanford University – remember, these universities receive government funding (which means we pay them with our hard earned tax dollars). Let me show you the inner cover of the book so you know what we’re working with here:

Interestingly, this book was published only one year after Rockefeller’s Population Council published “Beyond Family Planning”, a document which outlines ideas to control population growth – ideas which range from eyebrow-raising to horrifying, and only one year before the release of “Potential Socioeconomic Consequences of Planned Fertility Reduction”, a University of North Carolina document which reviews the pros and cons of intentional fertility reduction leading to the number of citizens in their state being drastically reduced. The authors of Population Resources Environment point out there are “many possible ways of interfering with the reproductive process” and “some of the most promising of these are under investigation in laboratories or are being tested clinically in humans”. On page 250 the writers recommend “the use of abortion and voluntary sterilization to supplement other forms of birth control…”. And it turns out, through their research they found a new sterilant, a chemical derived from the manufacture of dynamite that they felt would be great for men to take to render their sperm immobile.

Shortly after tossing around voluntary sterilization ideas and abortions they began to discuss involuntary sterilization. On page 254 they wrote, “Several coercive proposals deserve serious consideration, mainly because we may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”. The definition of coerce is “practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats or force” – let me remind you: 1.) this is coming from a college (Stanford University), 2.) What the hell does “WE may have to resort to them” mean? Who is “WE”? 3.) Who gave them the right to decide to sterilize people, let alone by threat or force? 4.) How is this legal? You can be arrested for plotting to murder or kidnap someone, so how is it acceptable to plot involuntary sterilization of nations? Yet these people are so brazen about their plan that they published it in an actual book! Granted, we were never supposed to read the book, but still…

Here are some of their unvoluntary sterilization ideas:

• Sterilizing fathers with three children. They mentioned that there simply wasn’t enough medical personnel available to start on this but if they were to get assistance from other countries this scheme was plausible.
• Mothers could be sterilized in the hospital while birthing their second or third child.
• They say if “famine, war, or disease” appeared the problem would be solved. (*wink, wink*)
• Science could develop a sterilizing capsule which would be implanted under the skin at puberty. It “might be removable with official permission, for a limited number of births”. Citizens who behaved well could essentially earn the privilege to have a child.
• Adding sterilants to drinking water at water processing facilities.
• In the book, a representative of the University of New Hampshire proposed developing and releasing a “sterilizing virus” (aka chemical weapon). Ideally, this weapon would sterilize everyone but an antidote would be available by injection. Their only concern with this idea was that the antidote might not work (Oopsie! We accidentally rendered everyone infertile, sorry!). A Physiologist from Tufts University School of Medicine liked the virus idea but said there was no need to sterilize the entire population, 5%-75% was enough. (we just learned in my series about Big Pharma Black Magic, it was Tufts who, only a few years before this fertility-stealing plot, rewrote the Hippocratic Oath for the medical industry! WTF!)
• They also considered making infertility so rampant that women must go to a fertility doctor to conceive. Using this method the system could be completely controlled. – I remember, in one of the early articles I wrote, looking at the shocking growth rate of “fertility clinics”. Look how many there are around Detroit as of 2025:

 

 

• And another one of their ideas was…

Stevia is a weed. Fun fact: Grasshoppers that eat crops won’t touch Stevia crops.

In the 1970s science was very interested in this weed and was in the process of investigating using stevia to reduce fertility. Experiments on lab rats had demonstrated a promising 79% reduction in fertility that lasted two months after the substance was stopped being taken. This study even appeared in the news in 1969:

The only problem science had was the effort that women would have to undergo to consume the weed; who wants to stand in their kitchen boiling water with the plant in it to reduce their own fertility? There really wasn’t any practical way to get women to perform these actions, but science knew this could be a winner for population control if an easier method for consumption could be developed. Let’s fast forward a couple years to the 1980s…

The earliest US media appearances of stevia that I am able to track down, peddles the plant as a weight-loss aid. You have to remember, back in the 1980s we were being bombarded with “counting calories” and consuming low-calorie and calorie-free substances (chemicals) were the solutions we were sold.

Although Sweet & Low and NutraSweet had been around for a while, doctors and dieticians were now beginning to promote the concept of artificial sweeteners because they were calorie free and therefore fit with the calorie-counting scheme.

Come 1990, “Stevioside” was about to be marketed in the USA (Stevioside? Sure sounds a lot like pesticide, rodenticide or germicide, doesn’t it? Stevoside? Who would want to eat that?)

The same year, Lipton began using stevia in their tea blends

In 1991 the FDA banned stevia and even took the additional step of stopping all ships containing stevia products from entering the USA. The FDA claimed to have based its decision on two animal studies which showed stevia reduced female fertility and an additional study which demonstrated negative effects on blood sugar, the heart and kidneys.

In 1993 an article appeared in the paper which made it sound like scientists had just discovered stevia. It went on to point out the problem was the color. Stevia extract is naturally tan, but “North Americans want white-colored sweeteners”. The other issue was the bitter aftertaste.

A couple interesting quotes from the article, “The big problem, as always, will be convincing people to try something new”, “You can’t make money growing corn anymore”…

Two years later, in 1995, the FDA approved stevia for use, but only as a “dietary supplement”. If you haven’t went down this rabbit hole yet, this is the vitamin sham in which our politicians were bought off by the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists (Big Pharma sneakily owns the supplement industry). This got our congressional representatives to vote to allow the industry of supplements to be unregulated despite the products it produces being consumed by people. This is what got us to where we are now with toxic chemicals, pesticides, factory byproduct waste, and even feces being used in the production of “supplements” – and it’s all 100% acceptable because our politicians made it acceptable. As the news article points out “Supplements are assumed to be safe and are not approved by the FDA”. Any substance can be deemed safe for use as a supplement but the exact same substance can be deemed not safe for use in food.

Because there is no oversight, as we have seen over the past decades, the FDA will only step in when so many people have been injured and killed that they are forced to do something about it. When this occurs they will ban the products causing harm but the exact products will reappear in the market under new names because there is no policing of the industry.

This ruling meant stevia couldn’t be called a “sweetener” or “sugar substitute” because it couldn’t be classified as food. In order to solicit the product in the US, it had to be sold as a supplement. Therefore stevia could be sold in little packets labeled “aspartame-free”, “saccharine-free”, etc but the stevia sellers couldn’t tell people to put it in their coffee because it wasn’t a “sweetener”, it was basically a “vitamin”. The stevia lobby continued to fight for full FDA approval so they could officially label their product a sugar substitute.

Meanwhile the media was promoting stevia as a hit product in Japan. This “off white powder” was 100-200 times sweeter than sugar and best of all, it was calorie free.

Keep Me Writing! Buy Me a Coffee

In 1998 the FDA sent warning letters to numerous companies telling them to stop selling books touting stevia as a sweetener because those books were, “in effect, product labeling”. The FDA then took the extra step of banning the import of cookbooks which promoted stevia. The same year the FDA approved Sucralose (a chemically altered sugar). It was at this time that I realized what was going on here and how the media was being used to show the public that they should be using stevia as a sweetener by writing pieces like “Stevia extracts gaining popularity”

And through the media, stevia could be promoted as a sweetener and even as a sugar substitute because the media was “just reporting the news”. Using this technique the media could advertise for this industry (or any industry) and skirt around existing laws.

By the year 2000, products like Stevia Plus were what we needed to be healthy.

Stevia was also great for diabetics.

Come 2005 the news was printing recipes that included the sweetener.

In 2006 the WHO announced they performed their own studies on stevia and the stuff is great. They found no toxicity whatsoever. Within a year Coca-Cola was interested.

In 2008 the Coca-Cola Co and Cargill Inc developed their newest product, Truvia, an artificial sweetener made of stevia leaf extract (“rebaudioside A”), erythritol, and “natural flavors”. Truvia was launched as a natural product despite not being natural at all. Simultaneously, Pepsi Co partnered with Whole Earth Sweetener Co and launched PureVia. Because stevia was still to be sold as a supplement only, both companies petitioned the FDA to classify their sweeteners as GRAS, Generally Recognized as Safe (which also means Sometimes Recognized as Not Safe but SRNS doesn’t sound as nice).

The FDA quickly cleared both products and they began advertising in the media.

Next, an attack was launched on sugar with stevia being the solution – it’s calorie free! This time around the substance was “up to 300 times sweeter than sugar”.

While that was going on, the first stevia television commercial appeared and targeted women who need to reduce calories, meanwhile, doctors and other authoritative sources appeared in the news to promote the new product.

Come 2010, the Global Stevia Institute launched. Their board consisted of some doctors, a dietician, a blogger and a chef. Their site was password protected when I tried to access it.

In 2011 Celebrity chef Rocco DiSpirito used stevia as a sweetener in his Christmas pork glaze.

This piece of “news” appeared in damn near every paper, disguised as unique articles.

While Rocco was making healthy stevia pork, the news printed (supposed) questions from readers like Joan van der Holt who wanted stevia baking advice:

And “C.S from Springfield” who needed clarification:

In 2012 Pepsi rolled out its new cola with stevia in Australia

Even Domino Sugar released a sugar and stevia blend

Then, in the 2012-2013 season of the hit show Breaking Bad, a stevia loving character appeared, Lydia Rodarte Quayle.

 

And with the release of the Breaking Bad character, stevia became the cure for obesity (it’s calorie free!).

In 2014, Cargill (Coke collaboration), the maker of Truvia, agreed to pay a $6.1 million lawsuit settlement for misleading shoppers through deceptive advertising by marketing their stevia-derived product as “natural” when it was not. According to the lawsuit, Reb-A serviol glycoside is highly chemically processed and the bulking agent (used to add weight to the product) called erythritol is synthetically made. The lawsuit stated “Cargill manufactures Truvia’s synthetic erythritol in a patented process by first chemically extracting starch from GM corn and then converting the starch to glucose through the biochemical process of enzymatic hydrolysis. The glucose is then fermented using moniliella pollinis, a yeast”.

The end result of the lawsuit was every customer who was part of the legal action receiving around $5 and Cargill agreeing to have the Truvia website edited to be more clear that the product which they call “natural”.

Ten months later Pure Via was involved in their own lawsuit.

By 2014 Coke and Pepsi were using the natural-not-natural sweetener in many of their products.

In 2015 the FDA sent a warning letter to many companies to remind them that whole leaf stevia as well as its crude extract have not been approved for use in food, which included teas. Businesses currently using stevia were deemed to be “adulterating” their products by using unapproved ingredients. However, at this point in time, stevia was still allowed to be solicited as a supplement because those are automatically considered safe and Coke and Pepsi were allowed to sell their natural-not-natural Truvia and PureVia because those had approval as GRAS.

Two years later, in 2017, the FDA gave full approval to the stevia extract “Reb-A” to be considered a food additive. Remember, Reb-A serviol glycoside is not whole leaf stevia. According to the lawsuit from some years prior, it is “highly chemically processed”. Within hours of the FDA ruling, both Coke and Pepsi announced new stevia products will be coming to the USA. Representatives from Coke and Pepsi insist all of this was just coincidence and that they had absolutely nothing to do with the FDA decision. They pinky promised.

The same year, the USDA began pumping tax dollars into developing a sustainable stevia industry in the USA – what a nice gift to the stevia makers. I sure wish the government would pump tax dollars into helping me grow and sustain this Substack or at least replace the burned out streetlights in my neighborhood.

The stated objective of the 2020 Stevia World Association Gathering was “to make stevia a substitute of sugar in India and all over the world.”. If you are not familiar with the population control people, India and Africa are the top two targets for swift depopulation; they want it driven down to zero growth. These are the same two locations the United Nations as well as Bill Gates and his pals donate vaccinations, supplements, and products like Ivermectin (literal insecticide) to – trust me, they are not providing these products to the areas that have been targeted for fertility reduction in effort to help people live long, healthy lives.)

Many of these products are also donated here in the USA, but mostly to low income welfare recipients – the same group of citizens who I wrote about in Killing the Useless Eaters: Crazy History of Food Stamps & Population Control – The ABCs of EBTs.

Support My Work! Buy Me a Coffee

THE PLOT TWIST

Fact: the globalists have put on record (since at least 1969) that they want to reduce population growth down to zero. Fact: They have frequently viewed the food and water supply as fantastic distribution channels for involuntary birth control. Fact: a lab rat study did take place in the late 1960s which claimed to show stevia reduced fertility by around 80%. But after this, the waters begin to muddy…

In 1981, many years before stevia became a potential contender to be used as a sugar substitute, an aspartame-based product called NutraSweet gained FDA approval to be used in food. Not long after, thousands of consumers had written the FDA to express concern because they had ingested this new sweetener and had suffered adverse side effects including rash, nausea, headaches, indigestion and even menstrual disorders.

The amount of people complaining about NutraSweet became large enough that in 1984 the CDC had to step in. The CDC issued a report that November stating the health complications being suffered by the public were “generally mild in nature” and that “sensitivity to aspartame” was uncommon. Although the Center for Disease Control admitted there weren’t really any “focused clinical studies” on aspartame, they assured the public it was perfectly safe for most. The same day as the CDC report, Pepsi-Cola USA announced all of its diet drinks would no longer contain saccharin and would instead be made with NutraSweet (aspartame). Officials from both the CDC and Pepsi claimed it was just coincidence because everything is just a coincidence between the pop makers and our health watchdogs.

Despite the consumer reports, come the following year, NutraSweet was making a killing and planned to spend $30 million on new marketing for their product.

As sales boomed so did health issues. In 1987 many scientists conducted clinical studies which showed NutraSweet is linked to serious health issues including brain damage, epileptic seizures, eyesight problems, allergic reactions, headaches, dizziness and more. Scientists began to accuse the “diet industry” of participating in “white washing” on behalf of aspartame (aka ignoring health concerns and continuing to promote a product despite overwhelming evidence of its dangers).

Shortly after, stevia leaf began to appear as an alternative sweetener. Not long after was the 1990s in which the FDA went balls-to-the-wall seizing stevia cookbooks, stopping ships and sending threatening letters to companies using stevia leaf in teas and such. The FDA did this primarily based on the rat study of 1969 – but if we look back at this study, we find that scientists fed “stevia tea” to some rats and when 80% didn’t quickly produce offspring, it was deemed to be because stevia acted as a birth control agent. “The tests weren’t very good; it was hard to tell what was even tested,” acknowledges Dr. George Pauli, director of the FDA’s division of product policy. He went on to point out that, other than the rat study, there really weren’t any studies, “it was really the lack of studies that raised alarms.”, he said. Supporters of natural stevia leaf performed over 180 studies in effort to replicate the lab rat experiment. They claim they were unsuccessful at inhibiting fertility.

THE SECOND PLOT TWIST

It would turn out that the product NutraSweet was owned by Monsanto. With the exception of Saccharin (Sweet & Low), Monsanto’s Aspartame nearly monopolized the sugar substitute industry for its entire existence… until stevia leaf came along. In fact, Michael R. Taylor, former vice president and lobbyist for Monsanto, worked in various roles within the FDA. These roles included Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Deputy Commissioner for Foods as well as acting as a senior advisor to the FDA commissioner during the same years as “the artificial sugar war”. As the all-natural movement began to grow in the late 90s and early 2000s, people began questioning what was in their food and seeking truly natural alternatives – this was unacceptable to the chemical men who saw stevia leaf as a threat.

What Coke, Pepsi and other manufacturers are creating from stevia is not a natural product, it is a chemical product that is being solicited as a natural product because the natural industry is almost entirely a scam, thanks to the FDA refusing to adequately define “natural”. The erythritol, the main component of Truvia, kills insects.

The end result is this insanity:

When all along the solution was simply raw honey.

Not only does it taste absolutely incredible, but it is packed with nutrients – (nutrients which we cannot get from chemicals regardless of what science tries to tell us.)

I personally believe raw stevia leaf is probably fine, as I believe plants were given to us to be our food and medicine – but raw stevia leaf is not what the stevia industry is trying to sell us. Even this, raw stevia, is not a leaf:

Yeah, this is definitely not a leaf:

In order to make plants into into pretty crystals the plant must first be be pulverized.

 

Then you end up with this:

They obviously can’t put that slop in a wrapper because it would rot, so it has a long way to go through many processes before becoming the mystical, magical crystals inside of a flashy little packet that tears open so nicely:

And because these are not natural ingredients being used to turn the leaf into a sugar, health problems can and do occur, just like with NutraSweet, Sweet & Low and the other chemicalized sugar alternatives.

Which is why children under 2 should never be given the substance.

(Despite the process, I would still choose it over sugar any day of the week if honey is not available).

For anyone who really loves stevia but also wants to go natural (meaning truly natural, not FDA-natural) I found the live plants for you on Etsy for $9 and up:

But there are still questions – why won’t crop-devouring grasshoppers touch this specific crop? As I mentioned in Fake Food Doesn’t Rot! Even Animals Won’t Eat It!, animals seem to have a sixth sense in which they know something is poisoned without touching it (which is why we have to trick pests into eating poison). I spent from spring until winter running the experiments shown in that article and was dumbfounded by what no animal would touch. Stevia, as a plant, is something the vast majority of animals avoid. Is it just due to its sweetness? I have no idea but it is something to consider…

Like My Research? Make a KoFi Donation!

Keep Me Writing! Buy Me a Coffee

Share

NEXT READ

---

2010 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-stevia-institute-born-as-consistent-voice-on-stevia-science-94827184.html

https://www.ingredion.com/na/en-us/company/expertise/the-stevia-institute.html

https://ir.ingredionincorporated.com/

Pure Circle Insist https://www.imarcgroup.com/stevia-manufacturing-companies

https://steviaworld.com/industry-approvals

Stevia Market Analysis 2024

https://redefinedweightloss.com/the-truth-on-truvia/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

https://www.newspapers.com/image/231998335/?match=1&terms=stevia%20taste%20buds

https://archive.org/details/populationresou000ehrl/page/254/mode/2up?view=theater

But they were also considering a “sterilizing virus”.

https://archive.org/details/populationresou000ehrl/page/254/mode/2up?view=theater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

https://archive.org/details/youtube-Mq3TccjFrcQ

https://archive.org/details/youtube-PGXcA8njWME

https://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0901/p2s1.html

chocolate causing fever blisters

calorie-free