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.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    (chemical in consumer product) is made of SCIENCE therefore it is OBJECTIVELY GOOD and if you have issues with that chemical you must be a TREE HUGGING CRYSTAL HEALING HIPPIE! very-intelligent

    Heard that sort of shit about glyphosate too, especially on reddit-logo

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m sorry that people actually knowing biochemistry is such a problem for you.

      Question: How can a dipeptide of two common amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that dissociate in your stomach cause negative health impacts?

      • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Everything has a negative health impact, literally even water does. The question is always about cumulative and spontaneous dosage. At what point does it become bad for you.

        One common explanation I’ve seen for aspartame is that it makes your body think you’re drinking sugar while no sugar is being absorbed. This is then potentially harmful for those with a predisposition for diabetes.

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Silverseren@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months 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.