maybe not panic, certainly contingency plans that people will be will be saying, Okay, well, what if this ingredient in the same way that businesses will will manage risk across across the board? I think you're one tabloids news headline away from a particular problem, kind of, at any time. And that can be and that could be sugar, or it could be artificial sweeteners and, or it could be colours, or whatever, what a what a tabloid newspaper chooses to go after, and, and whether or not there's enough, you know, they'll take people with them, it can be a worry. The fact that artificial sweeteners have given you cancer is something that everyone has known since the 1950s. Despite it being not very true. I believe that kind of the source of it. And I heard this on a Science Podcast many moons ago. So I haven't been able to prove it's easy to find a consultant This is that there was some work done with saccharin in rats, cuz saccade was being used in in the 1950s in America a lot. And there were some concerns around was this well understood, and giving it to rats caused the rats to get cancer. And this This was unpublished as a kind of a panic. Some further work was done. And it turns out that the metabolic pathways by which saccharin gave rats cancer was not something that's replicated. So a lot of the time, rodents and particularly rats can be really good models for human beings. And we can get really boring information from that. But in this case, it was a red herring. And that seems to have somehow got into the Zeitgeist and so everybody knows it in the same way that everybody knows that E number says your mental despite you numbers being a list of safe ingredients that can be added to beverages and other food and other foods products safely including vitamin C, which which hasn't been sold, but everybody knows it. And so these are kind of because soft drinks manufacturers are like other food manufacturers don't get to sit everybody down and explain everything you have to sort of you have to go with how people feel, as I say, which is partly why sucralose has become so popular because it's got some Yeah, and why trams and so on. Really help businesses will be will be making contingency plans, the range of sweeteners on offer allow you to have a bit of buffer studies continue. EFSA is is currently in the process of reviewing as cut on a longer scale. It is in fact, in the process of reviewing everything all the time. That's sort of what it's there for the European Food Standards Agency continues to express scientific opinions that are eventually turned into policy or back around in particular, recommended consumption limits for everything based on people consuming enormous amounts of whatever the product is, in order to keep us safe, which broadly is good thing but can cover the stuff around artificial sweeteners at the minute is a great thing. If you work for a company that sells something like stevia which is not counted, although you need to explain that it's certainly from an actual source of not one of these artificial sweeteners, and almost always not included in the study. So even ones that are lacking explain yet, but Esther is in the process of reviewing both a Saurfang K at the start time and I believe sucrose as well. So that that always makes me feel safe or that it makes me feel worried. Because when they really find a problem, they there's been limits and restrictions long before that happens before they find that there's a real risk rather than waiting to find out if this is killing us or we stop now. So that there tends to be enough time to implement changes to it to help. So