In my youth, the expression was "if you don't like it, lump it!" Today i'm inclined to use more graphic suggestions. ;-)
Today, also, i'm inclined to use the lumping-it expression to describe combining together a set of superficially-similar things which in fact have very different qualities ... like artificial sweeteners.
There's a huge difference between the various sweeteners available to us these days, and yet the broad generic classification is usually in use -- and usually to condemn ALL of them by natural-foods devotees. Lumping aspartame with saccharin, erithritol and refined stevia makes sense to you ... REALLY? There's even a lot of difference between aspartame and sucralose, though paleo zealots wouldn't have you think so.
When you're talking about CHEMICALS, from NaCl to C5H8NO4Na, the only difference between "naturally-occurring" and "lab created" is usually only variation in the molecular structure (l- forms vs d- forms, for example, and enantiomers). When the molecules are identical, it doesn't matter where they came from. Not to mention that there are plenty of "natural" substances which are highly toxic, and plenty of man-made ones which are NOT.
Some of us are sensitive to a lot of things that "normal" people find innocuous. Some of us cope well with things that a lot of other people have trouble with. It's all extremely individual. I can have one nutra-sweetened beverage occasionally and never notice issues, but I know I shouldn't use it regularly. When my stomach is empty, sucralose-sweetened drinks make me rather uncomfortable, but with food I have no problem. Saccharin, cyclamates, stevia, and sugar-alcohols have no apparent downside with me, except that maltitol tends to make me want MORE. YMMV.
No, your mileage WILL vary -- I think I can safely promise that.
Anecdote time: my mother used to be the executive secretary in the pharmacology department at the KUMedCenter, and I was in and out of the place all through my youth; she worked with some of the best drug people in the country, one of whom was on the committee which spoke to the FDA about saccharin safety decades ago. Dr. Doull was incensed that though they presented conclusive evidence that only outrageously-large doses had any impact on health, the FDA was predetermined to condemn the stuff. Frankly, being personally acquainted with John Doull (MD, PhD, and a great person), I have EVERY CONFIDENCE that all those damned bleats that "saccharin is carcinogenic" is ABSOLUTE POSITIVE BULLSHIT.
We're not living in a paleo paradise, we're living in a stressful modern world with tempting treats around every corner. Most of us have favorite goodies which we use to feel like part of our "tribe" but which will not make us sick. In an ideal world, we might not want anything sweet, ever ... but as things are, we often do. If people would rather have small quantities of real sugar, that's absolutely fine with me. If they prefer to consume things with honey or maple sugar "cuz it's natural" I may snicker to myself but i'm not likely to even comment on their paradigm anymore.
But I get really annoyed and disgusted when truly toxic substances are lumped together with things that are merely sub-optimal. Just like those sociological discussions go: if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one; if you don't like abortion, don't get one; IF YOU DON'T LIKE ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS, DON'T USE THEM ... but stop spreading the lies about them, too.