this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)

World News

32079 readers
859 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It uncovered eight WHO panelists involved with assessing safe levels of aspartame consumption who are beverage industry consultants who currently or previously worked with the alleged Coke front group, International Life Sciences Institute (Ilsi).

Their involvement in developing intake guidelines represents “an obvious conflict of interest”, said Gary Ruskin, US Right-To-Know’s executive director. “Because of this conflict of interest, [the daily intake] conclusions about aspartame are not credible, and the public should not rely on them,” he added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is a known effect, yes. And an understandable one that occurs just because of the sweet receptor response. But that has nothing to do with the effects being claimed by others about it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's possible that the increased risk of diabetes snowballs into an increased risk of cancer from diabetes' secondary conditions. Making claims about "these amino acids are harmless so the substance is harmless" disregards the possible chains of events that could actually cause more conditions.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

That is something that can be researched and would apply to anything that tastes sweet, of course, if true. But that's still not the things being claimed by people about the impacts aspartame is having on them.

Essentially, they're making claims akin to the MSG conspiracies, with the same lack of evidence for anything. Including with placebo studies showing the people claiming these effects also claiming it when they think they're consuming the substance, but they aren't.