- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
What I don’t get is why it took them decades to figure this out. Why have they been giving us sugar substitutes without understanding what they have been doing to us? Why were these approved for use in the first place?
Maybe synthetic, since it a synthesized chemical rather than a refined.
But honestly that’s not really better, because synthesized is not inherently bad either.
I think what he meant was that these sugar substitutes are not natural to have in the amount possible with industrialized food.
But then again, the exact same thing goes for sugar.
There is no obvious argument IMO why sorbitol or any other alternative sweetener would be harmful.
And it is still far from certain that even if sorbitol can cause liver disease, that it is MORE harmful than sugar, that we know can cause a long range of diseases like diabetes and heart attacks.
Nothing is safe if you take high enough volumes of it. If you drink 5 liters of water quickly, it can cause brain swelling, and you can die from that too. And water is probably the least harmful substance you can take.
My conclusion is that the “point” is simply wrong, even when being as charitable as you can possibly be.
One thing to add, synthetic/artificial only describes some of the sugar alternatives. Others, such as stevia and erithritol, are perfectly natural. Doesn’t make them any safer (or more dangerous), as you noted.
Exactly lots of things that are natural are harmful, while some synthetics are harmless.
Harmless within the limitation that everything in excess is harmful.