Stevia and Bitcoin, the two most controversial topics. Which is the 3rd ?

[Grant]

Hello Bitcoiners,

A while before i discovered bitcoin i was much engaged in the "superfoods" stuff, which naturally involved me in Stevia (for those of you unaware its the only 100% natural sweetener apart from sugar which does not have the side effects of sugar). Just google it and you shall be amazed, i really fell in love with it the day i discovered it the same way i did with bitcoin.

Here's my 1 million dollar question. What is that 3rd thing, that has similar properties ? Reason i ask you, i have decided to only invest my bitcoin income 100% consciously, i plan to invest part of (my bitcoin income) in stevia stocks and the other parts in other technologies/ideas that shine for same reason (they are controversial, they challenge the status quo, and they are obviously the future).

Tell me what it is i have overseen!

[Grant]

I just wanted to add, PM (or Gold and Silver) are not investments, those are entirely hedges against inflation. (and nothing more).

I'm curious what you guys think is the other big thing except bitcoin and stevia, it's the only 2 things i could find for past few years as a futuristic based investment. As far as stevia goes the only vertical conglomerate i could find its GLGL at nasdaq (in which btw i hold no position in atm).

[peach]

Stevia? Controversial? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Artificial sweeteners have been around for quite some time, and stevia alone has been incorporated into much of Coca-Cola's and many other multi-billion dollar international companies' products (years ago). There isn't a band of people that oppose the use of stevia on a philosophical, societal, or political basis like they do for issues like Bitcoin. Stevia serves its purpose--to reduce peoples' sugar intake and for its nutritional properties.

On an unrelated note: Sugar & carbohydrates are good for you and necessary for survival.

[Grant]

Stevia? Controversial? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Artificial sweeteners have been around for quite some time, and stevia alone has been incorporated into much of Coca-Cola's and many other multi-billion dollar international companies' products (years ago). There isn't a band of people that oppose the use of stevia on a philosophical, societal, or political basis like they do for issues like Bitcoin. Stevia serves its purpose--to reduce peoples' sugar intake and for its nutritional properties.

On an unrelated note: Sugar & carbohydrates are good for you and necessary for survival.

Well, high-grade stevia extracts require biotechnology (biotechnology itself is another controversial business), stevia still pending to be allowed for use as "sweetener" in europe (in the US it only got approved in recent few years). Almost all of the "mainstream" non-sugar beverages still use aspartame (aspartame is then yet another controversial sweetener, some report it to be harmful).

I see the potential of high-grade stevia extracts to replace aspartames place. (which is why i find it as an interesting long term bet, the overweight people is a huge market)

[netrin]

(for those of you unaware its the only 100% natural sweetener apart from sugar which does not have the side effects of sugar).

Uhm. NO

Try, for just one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol

What is that 3rd thing, that has similar properties?

Dude. Stevia may be your thing. But don't put it on the same controversy level as bitcoins (my thing). Of course NutraSweet convinced the FDA to ban it as a sweetener in the United States. Do you think this is the only product to have fallen to the evils of competitive lobbying? Don't get me wrong, stevia is cool, and that it's not in the general market is unfortunate, but one of three top controversies it is not.

I'd put marijuana or drug legalization in general up in the top three. As well as state sponsored terrorism/freedom fighting, cyber-warefare, white vs black hat hacking, debt-based fractional reserve banking, prison labour, torture, genocide, wars in general, starvation, restrictive markets, free speech, global warming, freedom of religion, women's empowerment, demasculinization, voting fraud, two party winner-takes-all system, reduced sperm count, increased cancer rate, obesity and diabetes (which stevia admittedly might counter).

And somewhere much lower is bitcoins.

And much much further below on the controversy scale is stevia (below birth control, hormone and gene therapy, embryonic stem cell research, disease control, HFCS, lack of public transport/rail in the US, aid and trade restrictions in the developing world, to name a few of the top of my head).

[Grant]

Dude. Stevia may be your thing. But don't put it on the same controversy level as bitcoins (my thing). Of course NutraSweet convinced the FDA to ban it as a sweetener in the United States. Do you think this is the only product to have fallen to the evils of competitive lobbying? Don't get me wrong, stevia is cool, and that it's not in the general market is unfortunate, but one of three top controversies it is not.

I'd put marijuana or drug legalization in general up in the top three. As well as state sponsored terrorism/freedom fighting, cyber-warefare, white vs black hat hacking, debt-based fractional reserve banking, prison labour, torture, genocide, wars in general, starvation, restrictive markets, free speech, global warming, freedom of religion, women's empowerment, demasculinization, voting fraud, two party winner-takes-all system, reduced sperm count, increased cancer rate, obesity and diabetes (which stevia admittedly might counter).

And somewhere much lower is bitcoins.

And much much further below on the controversy scale is stevia (below birth control, hormone and gene therapy, embryonic stem cell research, disease control, HFCS, lack of public transport/rail in the US, aid and trade restrictions in the developing world, to name a few of the top of my head).

I guess i should have written my post a bit differently. I'm not looking for just controversial stuff. I'm looking for stuff that can be directly invested into, and that have realistic potential of becoming less controversial (profit).

[TheGer]

How exactly is Stevia controversial?

[netrin]

How exactly is Stevia controversial?

Because NutraSweet, which has a patent on a carcinogen lobbied to schedule stevia, a naturally occurring sweetener 100x sweeter than sugar, fewer calories, and marketable by anyone. Did I get that right?

[TheGer]

Big Pharma lobbies to keep Stevia surpressed because it is natural, healthy, and sweet.  No real controversy here, just greed.

[foggyb]

Big Pharma lobbies to keep Stevia surpressed because it is natural, healthy, and sweet.  No real controversy here, just greed.

How is that not a controversy?

[netrin]

Big Pharma lobbies to keep Stevia surpressed because it is natural, healthy, and sweet.  No real controversy here, just greed.

How is that not a controversy?

It could, and maybe should, be a controversy. But it is not. Few know or care.

con·tro·ver·sy [kon-truh-vur-see; kuhn-trov-er-see] a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. contention, strife, or argument.