I read an article recently from a scientist who, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, concluded that everything we humans are exposed to may cause cancer. He did this to make the point that we often don't have the foggiest clue as to what actually causes some people to get some types of cancer, and others not. 

So I confess that when I read about this recent study from NCSU suggesting that sucralose, marketed under the brand name Splenda and the nation's leading sugar substitute, might also be a cause of cancer (specifically of the intestinal tract), my initial thought was "of course it is, just like everything else." To be clear, the study authors are not claiming a cause an effect relationship between sucralose consumption and illness, although they clearly lay the groundwork for such a conclusion. The researchers themselves acknowledge that understanding the genotoxicity of sucralose-6-acetate, its potential impact on human health, and its influence on intestinal barrier integrity necessitate further exploration. 

But what are we consumers supposed to make of studies like this one, and the other science in the food and beverage space? We are told that sugar is bad for our health, but so are sugar substitutes. We are told that consuming all kinds of "ultra-processed foods" are contrary to good dietary practices, but the National Institute of Health also cautions that it is "currently not possible to quantify to what extent organic food consumption may affect human health" either positively or negatively. Even water has its critics; sometimes due to its fluoride content, or the presence of lead and other contaminants. As we strive to eat right to maintain our health, sometimes the science almost seems to confuse more than clarify. Frustrating ...