4 ms·

Studied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Suc

Studied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Such markets could well potentially exist due to user experience trumping studies.

Blackthorn 3y ago
So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
- xcv123 3y ago
  There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.
        xcv123 3y ago
        You wrote > there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose Well, there are studies showing that there is something wrong with consuming sucralose. I posted a link to such a study. That contradicts your statement.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        You actually posted a link to a news article about a study, not a link to a study. And no, it doesn't contradict my statement that there's nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. It by itself is a piece of evidence, and doesn't by itself override decades of evidence.
        xcv123 3y ago
        The article contains direct links to studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.848392/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.84839... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 This obviously logically contradicts your statement. Your sophistry is incredible. Let's see how you bullshit your way out of this one.
- detrites 3y ago
  2-3 generations. Historically demonstrable as a metric to be sure about the ill effects of a new substance/tech. History is littered with examples of consumers & industry placing convenience & profits ahead of what's sensible to these ends. Eg, X-rays - 60 years from invention, popularity, child use, "crazy" people claiming they're bad, to suspicion they might be, conservative study, realising they're screwed, all kinds of safety standards being applied, and acceptance. Radiation, thalidomide, PCB's, DDT's, smoking, Asbestos, etc. Sometimes it can be faster or slower, but 2-3 human generations is also pragmatic as you can reasonably assess effects on offspring as well as sufficiently-aged pioneers. I mean, why are people even considering artificial sweeteners? Isn't it only because it's taken us all several decades to realise refined sugar is fucked after initially thinking it was great if not at least "safe"? I'm happy ingesting organic fruit, but I understand many out there prefer their bodies used as profit-making devices.
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    > I mean, why are people even considering artificial sweeteners? Isn't it only because it's taken us all several decades to realise refined sugar is fucked after initially thinking it was great if not at least "safe"? Can't speak for anyone else obviously, I use sucralose to sweeten plain nonfat greek yogurt for breakfast. It tastes like churned asshole without it, but it's otherwise a great food with everything I need for breakfast. Then I flavor it with either a certain number of calories, or artificial flavoring, depending on the day's goal. I use sucralose in particular because it's what was available, but I'd be perfectly happy using aspartame or whatever instead if that's what was usable.
    - detrites 3y ago
      Agree on the Greek yoghurt taste. I'd sweeten it with banana, as it can mix nice without much effort and is also packed with nutrients along with only a tiny bit lethal radiation. Calories I've no idea about though.
      - abawany 3y ago
        I've often wondered why grocery stores are infested with flavored yogurts, especially when they are often out of the plain variants that I'm seeking. I've thankfully never felt the need to 'flavor' yogurt and prefer its taste unadulterated - sourer the better.

Blackthorn 3y ago

So I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?

xcv123 3y ago
There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        You wrote > there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose Well, there are studies showing that there is something wrong with consuming sucralose. I posted a link to such a study. That contradicts your statement.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        You actually posted a link to a news article about a study, not a link to a study. And no, it doesn't contradict my statement that there's nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. It by itself is a piece of evidence, and doesn't by itself override decades of evidence.
        xcv123 3y ago
        The article contains direct links to studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.848392/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.84839... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 This obviously logically contradicts your statement. Your sophistry is incredible. Let's see how you bullshit your way out of this one.
detrites 3y ago
2-3 generations. Historically demonstrable as a metric to be sure about the ill effects of a new substance/tech. History is littered with examples of consumers & industry placing convenience & profits ahead of what's sensible to these ends. Eg, X-rays - 60 years from invention, popularity, child use, "crazy" people claiming they're bad, to suspicion they might be, conservative study, realising they're screwed, all kinds of safety standards being applied, and acceptance. Radiation, thalidomide, PCB's, DDT's, smoking, Asbestos, etc. Sometimes it can be faster or slower, but 2-3 human generations is also pragmatic as you can reasonably assess effects on offspring as well as sufficiently-aged pioneers. I mean, why are people even considering artificial sweeteners? Isn't it only because it's taken us all several decades to realise refined sugar is fucked after initially thinking it was great if not at least "safe"? I'm happy ingesting organic fruit, but I understand many out there prefer their bodies used as profit-making devices.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  > I mean, why are people even considering artificial sweeteners? Isn't it only because it's taken us all several decades to realise refined sugar is fucked after initially thinking it was great if not at least "safe"? Can't speak for anyone else obviously, I use sucralose to sweeten plain nonfat greek yogurt for breakfast. It tastes like churned asshole without it, but it's otherwise a great food with everything I need for breakfast. Then I flavor it with either a certain number of calories, or artificial flavoring, depending on the day's goal. I use sucralose in particular because it's what was available, but I'd be perfectly happy using aspartame or whatever instead if that's what was usable.
  - detrites 3y ago
    Agree on the Greek yoghurt taste. I'd sweeten it with banana, as it can mix nice without much effort and is also packed with nutrients along with only a tiny bit lethal radiation. Calories I've no idea about though.
    - abawany 3y ago
      I've often wondered why grocery stores are infested with flavored yogurts, especially when they are often out of the plain variants that I'm seeking. I've thankfully never felt the need to 'flavor' yogurt and prefer its taste unadulterated - sourer the better.