I'm on the fence on this one. Here's the logic of the anti-artificial crowd, as best I can put it... Humans have evolved alongside natural systems. And if huma

I'm on the fence on this one. Here's the logic of the anti-artificial crowd, as best I can put it... Humans have evolved alongside natural systems. And if humans have been eating something for a very long time, it's probably alright to eat. If a new sugar-like substance came into existence, it would probably come into existence as incremental changes to an existing system. Let's say that existing system was a staple food source for humans. Humans would gradually change as their food source changed, and adapt to it... Or, that food source would gradually become toxic to humans, and we would stop eating it. Now, take human-invented stuff. You have a sudden new thing which hasn't had generations of humans munching on it. Some lab tests show that it's great. But who really knows? Biology is super complex. And lab tests often have questionable funding and incentives. Consider the day that wonder-bread was introduced to the world. Old-school fermented sourdough bread had been eaten for a very long time by healthy humans. Wonder-bread had various chemicals tested in isolation which had proved to be positive for health (iron, calcium, etc). But now that enough time has passed, I don't think anyone looking back would suggest that wonder-bread is preferable to traditional sourdough fermentation. Asbestos is another good example. We thought the stuff was just the best thing ever. Turns out, in the very long run, it's pretty bad news. So, there's a certain logic to trusting evolved-systems over human-designed systems.