It's not about safeness, it's about taste, cheapness, metabolism and gut. A protein is by far better than a synthetic one on all accounts (apparently).
The point is, why do we think going heavier on the sugar-free product strategy is going to provide any solutions when it's clearly not made a dent in the last 20 years since light products became prevalent?
The sugar-free alternatives do not taste like sugar, which is evident from a multitude of blind-studies over the years, this is the first sweetener of this kind that is indistinguishable from sugar in taste and texture.
No one here is making the claim that it should be used for weight loss, that's more of a carbs issue in general - to which we have no substitute yet.
That's the whole point of my comment, and a large part of the article: "could put a dent in the global metabolic disease and obesity epidemic".
So yeah that is what's everyone is claiming.
It might not taste exactly like it, but nothing will. Regardless. Zero alternatives have become a massive market, and im sure many prefer it after while, knowing how human taste develops.
Don't follow your line of arguing, Im pointing to the arguments made by the authors of an article published in Nature. Neither this Article or my comment referred to the motivation of the manufacturer.
