Hacker News Reader

Comment by jebus989 | Hacker News Reader

This is an example of the "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. You may be able to make a case that Stevia is healthier than Aspartame, but it should be based on evidence to that effect rather than because you like the idea that it has ingredients derived from organic material.

View on HN

And this is an example of "where is the evidence" logical fallacy. In complex systems, such as the human body, the only evidence of safety is time -- a very long time. The Stevia plant (though not the same as extract) has been used for centuries. Aspartame was (accidentally) created in the lab in 1965.

If you are going to mess with complex systems, such as feed yourself aspartame, vape, give pregnant women a synthetic sedative and medication for morning sickness etc., you do it for a high potential gain that offsets potentially huge downsides. Benefits of aspartame are close to nil; if anything it probably makes things worse because people think they can consume more ultra processed foods sweetened with it because such foods have "fewer calories".

> In complex systems, such as the human body, the only evidence of safety is time -- a very long time. The Stevia plant (though not the same as extract) has been used for centuries. Aspartame was (accidentally) created in the lab in 1965.

Time is not evidence of safety, that is an odd claim (see smoking tobacco), thankfully we have the scientific method to investigate hypotheses like "x is bad for you".

Only if a long time passes without evidence of harm, we consider that the "evidence" of safety -- there is no other. It is very difficult to claim that something new introduced in a complex system is safe, so you weigh what you get right away from it vs. what you might end up paying down the road if it ends up being unsafe. Aspartame does not, in my view, clear that bar.

So does cocaine. 100% natural ingredients.

That's why if I ever need a false tooth with a suicide pill in it, I'll fill it with cyanide and not novitchok. It's much better for you

You may call it "appeal to nature", I may call it; if it ain't broke, why fix it?

The problem is that you assume consistency, but in reality, we keep modifying plants / fruits / etc by selecting them and planting them. IIRC fruits are now too sweet for zoo animals.

It is the statistical processes that determine how much something is "natural". Our bodies evolved alongside fruit that was on the smaller and less sweet side, and logically that's what we are the most compatible with. Over centuries and millennia we selected fruits to favor size and sweetness, and over 5 years we e.g. genetically modify a strawberry to have peach flavor. The last one is like a step function compared to the slow moving processes of the agricultural selection and so less "natural" and almost certainly less compatible with our bodies.

We might still get lucky and get beneficial side effects of aspartame or peach-flavored strawberries that makes us faster, stronger, smarter, but with these things the luck usually works in the other direction.

Well a dictionary would call your comment an "appeal to nature" as well. Ricin is natural, hugging a bear is natural, I mean come on...

Seriously? I should trust some scientists getting paid to push a product to multi billion dollar companies, over something simple you can grow yourself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com