|
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. |
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.