I think what commenters are looking for is a reason where this study is relevant for them (us) as humans, and they assess whether it is definitive or not. As HN is more of a generic curiosity and engineering related site then these starting point for further understanding are unlikely to get more nuanced discussion than that.

Thus, rather than submitting articles like the current, rather wait until anything more is available. We are tired of clickbait as well.

"tired of clickbait", also tired of declines in the trustworthyness of manufacturers of food/health and regulators thereoff, so personaly I choose the no failure mode solution, ie:I eat mostly whole food items and cook meals at home, and just avoid all of it.....which is the simplest response to the whole dilema for anyone concerned with possible health consequences of the latest "finding" so I simpathise with both sides in the debate, but vote with my kitchen

> Thus, rather than submitting articles like the current, rather wait until anything more is available.

How long more to wait?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Are any of them decisive?

We shouldn't need to wait for a _decisive_ study showing that a novel compound is dangerous to consider avoiding the novel compound.

There's rarely profit in demonstrating that novel compounds are dangerous so it's extremely unlikely for a given dangerous novel compound that there will be any decisive studies showing the danger.

IMHO the novel compound should have to be decisively shown to be safe before being sold in food, but since they are not, I recommend everyone avoid novel compounds as much as it's practicable.

I initially reacted to the root comment with why these kinds of articles often receive dismissive comments. HN is mostly not a medical forum so a typical reader reader isn't going to want nor be able to discuss the technicalities - they just want to know whether to avoid a substance or not. As is often the case, the results are inconclusive, hence the dismissals. (And these dismissals as top comments are also useful for the typical reader as they pretty much want a yes/no verdict and move on.)

But to your points, if there aren't any studies which can show that a compound is dangerous in any meaningful way, why would you want to avoid it? (Given there is a need or purpose, e.g, a low-calories sweetener.)

Also, decisively showing something to be safe is impossible in a similar way that software tests can only show that you haven't found any bugs yet, it doesn't mean there are none. (Off-topic: That's a quote from Edsger Dijkstra, which the following can be added: he is right, but for unit tests - using types, property testing or by running through the entire argument space for a pure function you actually can show that there are no bugs.)

"why would you want to avoid it?"

Here's an example. Company A invents compound B and pays company C to do safety studies that monitor the subjects for a few weeks or months. The study shows no significant danger. They start selling compound B in food or as medicine. Then 10 years later after millions of people have ingested varying amounts of compound B, it's found to cause some harm that wasn't found in the initial study. Company A pays a fine of less than the profit they made selling compound B, and compound B is pulled from the market.

There are many stories like that. Should I have avoided compound B on the precautionary principle? Or, because the only science done so far in those first 10 years showed it was safe, should I have considered it safe?

In the case of food additives it's even worse. Company A makes compound B, it's in food, no studies are done, millions of people eat it, are harmed, and no one knows for years or decades.

Personally I think introducing novel compounds to the body is just a bad idea period and I avoid them as much as is practicable. Too many have been found to be dangerous only decades later, and we have a population with rapidly rising rates of chronic disease and cancer etc that could be related to toxic stuff. Why risk it. And especially why trust science that is paid for by the companies that will profit if the science shows their thing to be safe?!

---

There _could_ be ways to show safety of something to a point, like do a 20 (or 50) year study with large cohorts where one population uses compound B and the other doesn't and monitor overall outcomes. But that's far too expensive and time consuming and not required so basically no one does it. Companies want to profit from their novel compounds fast.

Artificial sweeteners replace sugar (as you likely know), so there's a specific reason. But yes, eating any random newly invented molecul for no reason I wouldn't recommend either.

Typically single one-off studies should be dismissed and shouldn't be cause for concern. Anybody can study anything and it's very, very easy to do wrong.

For most everyday lay people, you should be looking at meta-analysis. We just don't have the context to hone-in on one study and examine how correct it is or what it actually means for our everyday lives.

I tend to read these comments as a quick dismissal of the title moreso than the research. The title implies that a fairly conclusive finding has been made.

This is science, not religion. Nothing is owed to any researcher beyond the truth of the matter as supported by the best available evidence to us. Your pastor can request you go easy on him, your research team may not. (Please don't use this as an excuse to be rude.)

This contradicts several reasonably large high quality studies using a low grade substitute for human testing. The burden of proof is on the researchers making a surprising claim in contrast to existing evidence.

Right, likewise the way science works is by publishing studies. Here we have a published peer reviewed study, "versus" a one paragraph anonymous dude trying to discredit the study.

Wake me up when this dude gets a paper accepted in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Then I will read what he has to say and add it to my list of "worthwhile" sources to form my conclusion on Erythritol.

Other than that, online forum comments are just mental candy floss to read while taking my morning caffeine fix.

You say "a one paragraph anonymous dude trying to discredit the study"; I say "pointing out that this study isn't definitive proof that diet sodas are bad for you without a lot more study."

Potato, potahtoe.

One is intentionally misspelled.

Also most diet sodas are not even sweetened with sugar alcohols, that's more of a stick gum thing.

That's a textbook ad hominem. Either the criticism is valid or it isn't; it doesn't matter who it's from.

Science isn't prestige-ism. The parish makes the priest but the same isn't true for the study.

Erythritol has had a lot of top class human studies on it. This is an extreme weak study with a shocking conclusion.

> Pitting a two minute reading vs months of work by a team of scientists is not a great move.

> In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”:

> These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false.

Yes I know this and do not dismiss their research at all. I have been in the same boat, having to write at the end of a paper "We have proven a certain link between Y and X in this very limited experiment A, a wider, deeper research would be needed to prove if any such link exists in much larger condition B". This is normal, and how most scientific advencement is made.

But look, I don't think the average HN user comes to this article and comment section thinking what happened when you put erythritol on a cell culture outside of a living organism. They care about what is the consequences of consuming erythritol on them. So a small clarification comment stating the 2 importants conditions of the experiment (cell culture + dosage) is usually useful if you don't have the time to read the whole study and if you came here just to know if you should stop consuming your favorite sweetened drink right now.