<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>escherplex</author><text>&lt;i&gt;BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;It would appear that the US FDA and European FSA disagree with you on that subject.&lt;p&gt;Concerning saccharin:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;In a December 14, 2010 release, the EPA stated that saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia link:  &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Saccharin&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Saccharin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Concerning Acesulfame potassium&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Critics say acesulfame potassium has not been studied adequately and may be carcinogenic, although these claims have been dismissed by the European Food Safety Authority and FDA&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wikipedia link: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Acesulfame_potassium&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Acesulfame_potassium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Plus a report that lactobacillus concentration may actually be enhanced by artificial sweeteners:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;In vitro analyses of Lactobacillus 4228 growth characteristics showed that presence of NHDC significantly reduces the lag phase of growth and enhances expression of specific sugar transporters, independently of NHDC metabolism. This study suggests that sensing of NHDC by a bacterial plasma membrane receptor underlies sweetener-induced growth of a health promoting gut bacterium.&lt;p&gt;Bacterial sensing underlies artificial sweetener-induced growth of gut Lactobacillus&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.researchgate.net&amp;#x2F;publication&amp;#x2F;278045609_Bacterial_sensing_underlies_artificial_sweetener-induced_growth_of_gut_Lactobacillus_Sweetener-induced_growth_of_gut_Lactobacillus&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.researchgate.net&amp;#x2F;publication&amp;#x2F;278045609_Bacterial...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Plus one of the last hold-outs to declassification of saccharin as carcinogenic was Health Canada which based the original prohibition on University of Nebraska studies but later concluded:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Such sodium salts, the council said, “produce tumours only when administered at high doses and only in rats,” thus “the mechanism by which the rats develop cancer is not present in humans.” &lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.agcanada.com&amp;#x2F;daily&amp;#x2F;saccharin-cleared-for-use-in-foods-in-canada&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.agcanada.com&amp;#x2F;daily&amp;#x2F;saccharin-cleared-for-use-in-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appears the jury is still out.</text><parent_chain><item><author>qwerty456127</author><text>The article doesn&amp;#x27;t say which sweeteners did they study and this is a very bad style. Fortunately it links to an article on EurekAlert which in its turn links to the actual scientific paper (doi.org&amp;#x2F;10.3390&amp;#x2F;molecules23102454). It says aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k) (BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK) were tested against Escherichia Coli (I would rather be interested in testing them against Lactobacillaceae).&lt;p&gt;Lactulose is a great prebiotic (not widely known infortunately) very good for gut bacteria (AFAIK), has geroprotective properties, is a mild osmotic laxative, has zero calories, doesn&amp;#x27;t affect blood sugar&amp;#x2F;insulin and tastes great. I use it instead of maple syrup. As far as I also know erythritol (looks, feels and cooks almost exactly like sugar) and palatinose (same, but has calories yet doesn&amp;#x27;t kick insulin and doesn&amp;#x27;t feed mouth bacteria so is safe for teeth) are good for gut bacteria too. We could also mention inulin (which is a well-known prebiotic very beneficial for gut microbiome) but it&amp;#x27;s sweetness is weaker.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria</title><url>https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/artificial-sweeteners-are-toxic-to-digestive-gut-bacteria-study.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>quantumwoke</author><text>&amp;gt;BTW at least saccharine ad ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK&lt;p&gt;Not according to the National Cancer Institute [1]. The amount of misinformation in nutrition is frustrating at times.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cancer.gov&amp;#x2F;about-cancer&amp;#x2F;causes-prevention&amp;#x2F;risk&amp;#x2F;diet&amp;#x2F;artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cancer.gov&amp;#x2F;about-cancer&amp;#x2F;causes-prevention&amp;#x2F;risk&amp;#x2F;d...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>qwerty456127</author><text>The article doesn&amp;#x27;t say which sweeteners did they study and this is a very bad style. Fortunately it links to an article on EurekAlert which in its turn links to the actual scientific paper (doi.org&amp;#x2F;10.3390&amp;#x2F;molecules23102454). It says aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k) (BTW at least saccharine and ace-k are already known to be carcinogenic AFAIK) were tested against Escherichia Coli (I would rather be interested in testing them against Lactobacillaceae).&lt;p&gt;Lactulose is a great prebiotic (not widely known infortunately) very good for gut bacteria (AFAIK), has geroprotective properties, is a mild osmotic laxative, has zero calories, doesn&amp;#x27;t affect blood sugar&amp;#x2F;insulin and tastes great. I use it instead of maple syrup. As far as I also know erythritol (looks, feels and cooks almost exactly like sugar) and palatinose (same, but has calories yet doesn&amp;#x27;t kick insulin and doesn&amp;#x27;t feed mouth bacteria so is safe for teeth) are good for gut bacteria too. We could also mention inulin (which is a well-known prebiotic very beneficial for gut microbiome) but it&amp;#x27;s sweetness is weaker.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Study: Artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut bacteria</title><url>https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/artificial-sweeteners-are-toxic-to-digestive-gut-bacteria-study.html</url></story>