3 ms·
You're implicitly assuming natural compounds are better than artificial ones. That's not necessarily true. It is maybe more likely to be true, since we may have
by eloff 4y ago
You're implicitly assuming natural compounds are better than artificial ones. That's not necessarily true. It is maybe more likely to be true, since we may have evolved with exposure to the natural chemical, and our bodies may handle it better. But that's equivalent to saying men are more likely to earn more than women. True on the whole, but nearly completely useless when looking at a particular individual. You really have to examine each compound on its own merits.
- eternalban 4y ago> You really have to examine each compound on its own merits. Isn't this the crux of the issue, that lacking clear predictive models of side-effects (short, mid, and long term) it is better to err on the side of caution with this heuristic. If we can definitively assert outcome, then yes, go with the science. Also, disagreement regarding equating a cultural phenomena (demographics & earnings) with a biological one. This is an error which leads to false analogies and conclusions.
- eloff 4y agoWe're not lacking information though. There are huge amounts of studies available for every FDA approved artificial sweetener. There is more information lacking for some of the less common natural ones. Also disagree about your disagreement on principle without a structurally valid argument.