- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
What I don’t get is why it took them decades to figure this out. Why have they been giving us sugar substitutes without understanding what they have been doing to us? Why were these approved for use in the first place?
Sugar is also a chemical. You simply can’t just say because “chemical” because that doesn’t make any sense. Sugar is actually 2 chemicals, so by that logic a sugar replacement that is only 1 chemical, should statistically be half as risky, based on the “chemical” logic, and by that logic make a lot of sense to use instead.
Just to be a bit more charitable to their point, what word should they use instead of chemical when, broadly speaking about such things?
I’m aware of the fact that sorbitol might be a bad example. Replace it with aspartame. What word should they use to avoid getting told sugar is a chemical?
I’m not looking to argue, I just find the “everything is a chemical” rhetoric to be a bit obnoxious. And I think both sides could be making their points in a less adversarial way.
Maybe synthetic, since it a synthesized chemical rather than a refined.
But honestly that’s not really better, because synthesized is not inherently bad either.
I think what he meant was that these sugar substitutes are not natural to have in the amount possible with industrialized food.
But then again, the exact same thing goes for sugar.
There is no obvious argument IMO why sorbitol or any other alternative sweetener would be harmful.
And it is still far from certain that even if sorbitol can cause liver disease, that it is MORE harmful than sugar, that we know can cause a long range of diseases like diabetes and heart attacks.
Nothing is safe if you take high enough volumes of it. If you drink 5 liters of water quickly, it can cause brain swelling, and you can die from that too. And water is probably the least harmful substance you can take.
My conclusion is that the “point” is simply wrong, even when being as charitable as you can possibly be.
One thing to add, synthetic/artificial only describes some of the sugar alternatives. Others, such as stevia and erithritol, are perfectly natural. Doesn’t make them any safer (or more dangerous), as you noted.
Exactly lots of things that are natural are harmful, while some synthetics are harmless.
Harmless within the limitation that everything in excess is harmful.
What things? There is no sub-group of chemicals whose sheer presence automatically makes a food harmful. The replacement is a different argument.
Y’all are being difficult and pedantic when you could rise above that. Especially given my specific question.
And I wasn’t asking you.
This isn’t pedantic, it’s the answer, unless you can specifically tell me what “such things” are.
You’re asking a question in a public forum, I don’t see how me answering is offensive.
That’s the thing, I’m not sure what “such things” are, but I know “chemicals” is a bad classification. I mean food ingredients that have been later shown to be toxic or harmful. Or that have developed a such a reputation, even if the evidence is mixed or misinterpreted.
Trans fats wouldn’t be called a “chemical” but we use to think they were pretty awesome. And after looking around, it seems like sulfites are banned in some food contexts. I’m not finding as many examples as I would have assumed, tho.
So what’s the word for things that have been found to be bad and thus removed from food and drink? Or that have not been yet removed in all parts of the world, but are considered risky.
I wasn’t debating toxicity. I wasn’t talking about if any one example is truly toxic or not. That was what I was trying to avoid. All I wanted was a better word. Because “EVERYTHING IS A CHEMICAL” is a shitty response, and it seemed to me that telling the person water is a chemical is unproductive, and just being a dick. What word is not inclusive of all matter?
“Chemicals that have been shown to be harmful enough to warrant caution”. I don’t know what else to tell you.
The thing is, this specific chemical that we’re talking about hadn’t been shown to be harmful until now (and as you can see by the discussion elsewhere the jury is still out on if it has indeed been shown) so they couldn’t have used that phrase either to argue that it should have been obvious why ingesting it is a bad idea.
I don’t care if it’s toxic or increases the human lifespan.
I was calling out people being shitty to each other. And by asking about what word would be more appropriate, I was trying to make a point that would illuminate how smugly stating “everything is a chemical” is shitty. It comes off as neckbeard bullshit. It’s exemplary of public forums being toxic.
And I’ll reiterate again, I’m not defending the toxicity of anything here. I was just looking for a way for the discourse on the subject to avoid jerks replying that they drink water, a chemical, every day.
This is also why I said I wasn’t talking to you. Because I wasn’t trying to make a point with you. I was engaging with the person I replied to. But here you are talking about the toxicity of a specific thing, instead of seeing my point.
You were asking what word they should have used instead of “chemicals” and I told you the one option that might be appropriate if not for the specific circumstances. What else do you want?