The absurd amount of money and time that has been spent on studies around artificial sweeteners should tell you its probably safe. Everyone has been dying to find a smoking gun here for decades and it never happens.
The politicized approval process that got sucralose and aspartame on the market should give anyone reason for concern. Remember that the beneficiaries of those approvals are people who know the most about these chemicals and are motivated to avoid learning more or disclosing what they know.
>Remember that the beneficiaries of those approvals are people who know the most about these chemicals and are motivated to avoid learning more or disclosing what they know.
That's basically the status quo for how every new product gets approved.
The conclusion of this study is that in the long term the sweeteners are not safe for adult people, because they increase the risk of diabetes and of various cardio-vascular problems, even if they do not cause any cancer risk.
The same is true for added sugar, so the sweeteners are not better than sugar.
Does the study prove causality though? By what physical mechanism does a range of different substances, with no calories, cause diabetes and cardiovascular problems?
The glaring problem is that diet sodas are often consumed as part of an unhealthy diet, alongside unhealthy fast food burgers and fries, and that best explains why you'd see the increase in diabetes and cardiovascular issues. Occam's razor.
One possible mechanism is that by tasting something sweet you respond hormonally the same as if you had consumed sugars, increasing pancreatic workloads. There's a fair bit of research showing that diet sodas increase hunger, so it isn't too far-fetched to believe something causal exists in there.
The study by itself doesn't really prove causality though.
