[eemil]

What's with the double standard, around sugar and artificial sweeteners?

Artificial sweeteners do not need to be as safe as bottled water.

They just need to be less harmful than sugar. Which they are, because sugar is unequivocally, very very bad for you.

[simonsarris]

> because sugar is unequivocally, very very bad for you.

So all fruit is bad for you? Lactose is unequivocally bad? Even for nursing infants? How deep does "unequivocally" go exactly?

I hope you really just mean "added sugar in soda-tier quantities" when you say sugar is "unequivocally, very very bad". But I think this kind of hyperbole is part of why food science has got an awful reputation. Even the most 'enlightened' sources (and there are plenty of competing enlightened sources right now) seem unable to stop the totalizing language.

[niam]

One refrain seems to be that "added sugars" are bad but then that's not quite true afaik either, because sugar is sugar whether it's "added" or not.

To a first approximation, "sugar is bad for you" seems to be a succinct lie-to-children[1] default, from where exceptions can be established. Whole fruits with lots of sugars (as opposed to e.g fruit juices with a comparable amount) are purportedly less-bad because they're accompanied by enough fiber to slow digestion and make the sugar less bioavailable.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children