[curun1r]

When it comes to health effects, it's not necessary to prove that all members of a category share those effects. Simply showing that at least one member of the group is dangerous can be enough to recommend that people alter their behavior.

For example, not all snakes have venom that's harmful to humans. But some do and that's enough to assume than an unknown snake is venomous until it's been shown to be otherwise. Similarly, your "liquids are poisonous" study is enough to conclude that we shouldn't be ingesting liquids that haven't been shown to be safe.

Similarly, if we can conclude that one or more artificial sweeteners are harmful to our health, we can and should be consuming unsweetened foods until such time as individual artificial sweeteners are shown to be safe.

[pdonis]

> it's not necessary to prove that all members of a category share those effects

You're assuming "artificial sweeteners" is a meaningful category, of the same kind as "snakes" or "liquids". Since the various substances in question are very different, chemically, I think that assumption requires more justification than just a bare assertion.

[jrapdx3]

With pharmaceuticals the FDA customarily insists that "class effects", meaning adverse effects and black-box warnings, apply to all drugs considered to belong to a category. It doesn't even matter if a brand new drug is far less likely to produce certain "class effects" than prior drugs in the same category, the exact same warnings must still be listed.

In other words, the implicit rule is that drugs or additives in a class are "guilty" of potentially causing an adverse effect unless thorough study provides evidence that a member of a class does not produce particular negative effects. It's a high bar for manufacturers to get over and it's seldom attempted.

The FDA can assume serious adverse effects of one artificial sweetener apply to others, if the others are officially in the same class of substances as the first.