The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
It may also be that because they're... I don't think that everything is that's natural is better, necessarily than things that are artificial, but it may be that because of kind of evolutionary exposure to these compounds in our diet, historically there are, I think, traditional populations that use these, for instance, to sweeten different foods, that our bodies just know how to deal with those compounds better than the ones that are synthetic.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
It may be that those are actually um, you know, less negative or, or more healthy than um the ones that are artificial just because it requires less of them in the food for us to perceive that sweet taste.