[tejohnso]

They indicate:

> Notably, all four tested NNS (saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and stevia) significantly and distinctly altered the human intestinal and oral microbiome, as would be expected for these chemically diverse compounds.

But also:

> Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are commonly integrated into human diet and presumed to be inert

So they are presumed to be inert, but also significantly alter microbiome, as would be expected since they are chemically diverse compounds.

They indicate it should be obvious that they are not inert at the same time as they are presumed to be inert? And if it's obvious that they are not inert then why are there so many unanswered questions while they're still allowed into our food system? Is it unreasonable to expect that some newly popular food additive is properly studied before it stats to gain massive adoption in prepared foods?

[Tagbert]

The assertion of them being "inert" is probably in terms of interaction with the human metabolism. That is likely what is studied when deciding if a compound is safe for ingestion.

What you are calling out is the wider impact to our internal ecology and that is s much more complex thing to measure and something that we are only beginning to understand. There are no regulatory frameworks that take that into account.