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.

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’ve studied this chemical literally more than any other food additive and there’s still nothing definitive. Also mice are not a good stand-in for humans. They are really only used for acute toxicity and such.

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the mice genetically predisposed to getting tumors got tumors. What more proof do you need?

    • Mawks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I honestly have no clue on the studies but I can’t drink anything with aspartame in it at all, even a single sip bloats me and screws up my bowel movements hard. It might just be an allergy but it took me 3 years to find the cause and I’m happy to avoid it that’s for sure.

      • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe there are studies showing it messes with gut bacteria. Seems consistent with what you describe.

        • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah the occasional non-cancer side effects are well known by now but weirdly enough they just can’t seem to find anything conclusive on whether it causes cancer or not…

          At this point I’m willing to accuse the sugar lobby for trying to sabotage this chemical out of the market

        • ribboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not aspartame. The study, it’s mainly one, showed that sucralose and saccharin did just that. But aspartame had no effect.

      • Voli@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get the worst migraines from the heavy concentrated juices that use aspartame instead of sugar. And I mean two to three days of constant head pounding, I stopped drinking the “sugar free” ones and I have not had a migraine ever since.

    • PreachHard@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My gripe is that swapping out sugars for fake ones doesn’t seem healthy long term regardless of any direct impact aspartame itself may have. Just have less sugar imo.

      Edit: didn’t realise how controversial that soft opinion would be lol. Look, drink what you want but I’m going to stick with water unless it’s a treat. I know it’s not healthy for me to scratch the dopamine itch with sugary tasting treats all the time; fake sugar or not. My perspective is less about trying to say, diet soda is bad but that there must be better alternatives to suggest than just sweetener filled copies?

      • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you mean?

        I’ve heard of things like the sensation of sweetness being decoupled from satiation leading to a greater urge for sweetness in compensation, but at least personally that’s not happening to me lol.

        • Rowsdower@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think what they mean is we shouldn’t encourage people to drink what is essentially candy water. Doesn’t matter if it has sugar or aspartame. It’s still candy

          Replacing an unhealthy habit with a less unhealthy habit is still unhealthy (written as I drink a Dr Pepper zero)

          • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why not though? The health impact of moderate diet soda consumption seems to be pretty negligible.

            • Rowsdower@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Diet sodas still aren’t water, and they are pretty acidic. They eat away at your teeth, and aren’t great at actually hydrating you. It significantly reduces the harm from drinking candy water, but it doesn’t eliminate them

        • PreachHard@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s pretty acidic which sucks for your teeth for one but that wasn’t what I was trying to say

          Yeah I just really mean as a diet as a whole though. If you have an issue with sugar intake then you’re probs drinking way too much sugary drinks. To suggest just swapping out sugars for fake ones I don’t think is best choice to suggest for most people.

          I think there’s probably tons of other issues too just aside from the excess glucose. So fix the diet not the sugar.

          Yeah I agree it’s fine that a most of these chemicals are safe in moderation and well researched. My gripe is the hot swap fix-all attitude that people can take from it.

          • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That makes sense. I’m coming at this as someone who drinks diet coke because they like it rather than to avoid drinking sugar.

            Amusingly it’s the fact that diet coke is relatively less sweet that makes me like it.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And even if it’s true, it means you’ll eat the sugar instead of drinking it, and then you’ll be able to ingest less sugar before feeling full, plus you probably get some fibre with it as well which helps a lot.

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if aspartame does cause cancer you get the choice of cancer or diabetes when you drink cola, so whatever. Just don’t drink it.

    • Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not what this is saying. This is saying the studies saying it IS harmful were real, and the part saying “it’s probably safe in small amounts” was industry-influenced.

      • cobra89@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, this is just saying the safe dosage level was biased by people from the industry being on that particular panel.

        Despite the IARC’s new designation, the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which determines safe doses of food additives, did not change its recommendation for daily intake of aspartame. JECFA still says that consuming 40 milligrams of aspartame per every 1 kilogram of body weight (about 2.2 pounds) per day is acceptable, according to a news release.

        This is just 1 panel that determined the safe dosage level. This does not affect the findings of the study at all which concluded that aspartame is “possibly carcinogenic to humans” but that “We don’t know enough about the possible link between aspartame and cancer, but we can’t ignore that there’s something going on”

        So they haven’t even found a definitive link or even said it’s definitively dangerous. And the 40 milligrams per 1 kilogram of body weight is the same as the recommendation from the FDA.

        Also the thing it is replacing, sugar, IS known to cause cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. So take that as you will.

        • CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That last bit is what people always seem to miss.

          Getting hit in the head with a branch is bad for you, but it’s less bad for you than a bullet.

          In the end, you need to compare the two risks, and not decide “a is bad, no need to look at b”

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t much care what one study is saying. We’ve studied this chemical so much and we still have no conclusive proof it’s harmful. At some point you really gotta focus money elsewhere.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Okay, corruption like that should be corrected. Regardless, there’s no scientific evidence that aspartame is harmful. Let alone a biochemical reason for why a dipeptide of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that dissociates in the stomach into its constituent components and some byproducts would be harmful in the first place.

    Unless you have phenylketonuria, but you have much bigger problems in that case and, if that is the case for you, kudos on being at an age and capability to read and understand this post, you are incredible.

    Edit: Also, just noticed the part about US Right To Know, which is a well known anti-science group that’s been pushing pseudoscience and fearmongering about other topics, such as biotechnology, for years. So them being involved here raises questions.

    • Saneless@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I want to get rid of it because I want a non sugar coke that doesn’t taste like burned tar soaked in urine

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then drink the Diet Coke with Splenda one? There’s also Coke Life that has stevia instead. They basically made sure they have a version with each type of sweetener.

          • Sassy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fuck yes. Why is there sugar added to applesauce and fruit juice? Why is it so hard to find low calorie drinks that don’t contain artificial sweeteners? The way to curb sugar intake is moderation.

            • Myrhial@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sugar is antibacterial, hence why honey can stay good like forever. It’s a cheap way to increase shelf life that also makes people really like the food because we evolutionary seek that stuff out. It’s not right though. We work long hours so convenient foods should allow us to buy back some time. But when they’re all like this, you end up either having to do it yourself or risk your health. There should absolutely be limits. But with food costs as they are, who is going to fight for that? The alternatives are more expensive, or you reduce shelf life. It’s much better regulated here in the EU but we too are still not there, obesity is still on the rise.

              • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s tasty, cheap, antibacterial and gives attractive colors (caramel). That’s why companies like to put it everywhere, it’s just awfully convenient.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Were I live sugar is added to cider, making it basically extra sweet apple juice with a touch of alchool.

            • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can also just get fruity syrup and make syrup juice with a lot of water.

          • BlueDwaggin@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I find that Stevia has a vaguely creamy flavour to it. Which works well in some instances, and not in others.

            Aspartame just tastes awful, for me I get this weird sticky/bitter sensation over the roof of my mouth and turn my throat.

            Splenda/Sucralose tastes fine, but has noticeable effects elsewhere, which are a bit TMI.

        • Saneless@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not better. Splenda just tastes odd. And I haven’t seen that in stores in years, and I don’t remember liking it the first time around

          • scottywh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Splenda legit causes digestive problems… Aspartame is fine… Especially in comparison

      • gamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aspartame isn’t only safe, it also goes GREAT with a cold glass of Coke Zero™! *

        *these statements have not been approved by the FDA

    • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I especially like the part where they get away scot free, and the guy is just telling us to ignore them… maybe fire them for the conflict of interests? Ugh.

  • DarkWasp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was under the impression the research showed that there was a risk but you needed to consume an exorbitant amount to get there. Around 20+ cans of coke a day which the majority of people don’t do.

    • Fluke@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The World Health Organization said it was safe up to a certain level. The people in the WHO who said that work for Coca-Cola.

      This means we can’t rely on the recommendation, and the actual “safe” amount may be much lower than that. The article goes into good depth and gives counterarguments too.

      It is important to note that in reality there is no safe amount for a carcinogen. Sometimes a threshold is set to reduce risk to a reasonable amount in necessary workplace exposure or medical treatments.

      The truth is, I think we’ll all eventually realize any sweetener should be seen as candy, not a thirst quencher.

      • Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you being basically the only person in the thread who actually read the article.

        The part where they said “aspartame is probably bad” wasn’t the corrupt part. The corrupt part was when they put an addendum saying “a little bit of cancer is okay as a treat”

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I read somewhere that asparteme doesn’t accumulate and just passes through the body, which was an argument for having a regular intake below the threshold to be not a risk. With this revelation though, that seems sus now too.

    • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t want to share my life story, but I did for a time, got to about a twelve pack and a half a day of diet coke when I was 20.

      My reward was not weight loss, but an a-fib. and half a life expectancy.

      I don’t blame the diet coke because I was the one buying and drinking it. But it is important people understand that something is wrong in that stuff.

      Just as I wouldn’t blame cigarettes for giving me lung cancer, but I would want others to know it can.

      • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apart from the aspartame, that’s also like 900mg of caffeine a day, which is over twice the recommended amount, and 700mg of sodium.

        • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yup. what else can I say except poor self control and shortcuts are a mean combination.

          I eat a lot healthier now, but that mistake isn’t one that just goes away.

            • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unmedicated, I would crave soda like a fucking sugar tick. I’d eat until I was sick, then eat some more. Actually rotted a bunch of my teeth with my shitty habits and poor self-control. Needed several root canals… ugh…

              Medicated, I have soda maybe once per month or every other month. I don’t have uncontrollable cravings for sugar anymore. It’s fucking great!!

      • Doug7070@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to defend diet coke (any kind of soda is not healthy for you, regardless), but I would generally assume that drinking 144oz (assuming 18x8oz cans/day) of any type of beverage that isn’t plain old water would tend to cause some level of serious health effects, given that’s more than your entire general recommended daily fluid intake from all sources. I feel like the general takeaway is that most food and drink is bad for you in excess, and companies constantly slapping “diet/low fat/low carb/etc.” labels on junk food products that are marginally healthier than their peers gives a false impression that you can have your cake and eat it too in terms of negative health effects from these foods/drinks.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s basically how I’ve felt about it. If you’re getting too much sugar from drinking soda, the correct response is to drink less soda - not substitute the sugar with something that tricks your body into thinking it’s sweet.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But this ignores that people want to drink soda, and sugar-free soda lets them do that while also not consuming vast vast vast amounts of pointless calories.

            You have to balance enjoyment with health, not doing so is why most diets fail, if you force yourself into a healthy diet that makes you sad you will almost inevitably end up falling back to the junk food because it makes you happy.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              People want to eat lots of fat, sugary foods but that doesn’t mean they should.

              Certainly, it’s about balancing enjoyment with health. However I think it’s important to listen to what your body is telling you, when it’s telling you you’re having too much of something.

              • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Honestly not sure what your point is here, you seem to have ignored my argument and replied with a non-sequiteur.

                Yeah, people should listen to their bodies, and their bodies say that they want to drink soda.
                Now, is it better to drink soda with a shitload of calories, or soda with like 3 calories?

                Most people have not trained themselves to pull off intuitive eating and thus their bodies just crave fats and carbs, so the best thing to do to improve their diet is to satisfy those cravings while consuming fewer calories.

                This then provides an excellent motivation to re-calibrate your cravings as you realize that it is, in fact, possible to eat healthily without being miserable.

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The body isn’t saying it wants soda. There is no drive from the body for soda. The body might want sugar, but it’s also saying it’s having too much. The brain is saying it likes the taste of soda, but taste isn’t nutrition.

                  Most people have not trained themselves to pull off intuitive eating and thus their bodies just crave fats and carbs, so the best thing to do to improve their diet is to satisfy those cravings while consuming fewer calories.

                  The best thing to do to improve their diet is to improve their diet. The point is to learn that those cravings aren’t right, so you can learn to identify your body’s real cravings are. If you keep drinking diet soda you may be less likely to make meaningful change, at best you’re delaying it.

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should absolutely blame the Diet Coke and the execs that push it. Almost every aspect of eating the food we need to live is distorted by people trying to make as much money as possible at the expense of our health. They know it. They spend billions doing it. You likely wouldn’t have been consuming it or so much of it if it wasn’t on every billboard and commercial and was at the back of the store in plain boxes without the big ‘sale’ or ‘bogof’ stickers. It doesn’t have to be this way and you shouldn’t blame yourself or any other individual for a social problem.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Around 20+ cans of coke a day which the majority of people don’t do.

      This guy has never met an American. Ever heard of a Big Gulp? We literally had private companies engineer bigger soda cups to handle how much fucking soda Americans drink.

      • jonsnowman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dont necessarily disagree with your overall point about Americans drinking a lot of soda, but I don’t think pointing out that a company makes a cup a little smaller than 3 cans of soda is a very strong counterargument to the claim that it takes 20+ to be harmful…

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The largest Big Gulp is 50oz and when I was a kid, people leaned on free refills for them. A 50oz is almost a whole 2-liter.

          You’re not wrong, it’s not the best example, but I’ve seen people go through numerous Big Gulps a day.

          Hell, when I worked overnight as a security guard, one of my fellow guards who drink an entire 2-liter of Mountain Dew to himself every night.

          It’s hard for me to think about because I can’t even get through a whole 16oz without stopping halfway because it’s too syrupy.

          • chakan2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A 2 liter a day is still miles away from the amount you’d need to drink to reach unsafe levels.

            I think you’d have to drink 3+ a day before you’re at unsafe levels if you’re 150lbs (and…well…if we are shitting on eating habits, 150 is a very light American).

          • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Holy balls that’s a large cup wtf. How popular are they? I mean, you see them in movies but that’s all the info I can draw from lol.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We literally had private companies engineer bigger soda cups to handle how much fucking soda Americans drink.

        This is a really weird statement. Like it was some sort of feat of engineering to manufacture larger cups.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Very arguably, with 1970’s manufacturing standards, and how much 32 ounces of liquid weighs, it was an engineering feat at the time. So much so that the originals looked more like a milk carton.

          https://physicalculturestudy.com/2017/08/31/the-history-of-the-big-gulp/

          Potts’s desperation caught the attention of Coca-Cola, who in 1976 sent representatives to the merchandise manager with a strange proposition. Coca Cola wanted to create a new 32 ounce cup for their drinks, a previously unheard of amount. The largest size at the time was 20 ounces, and even that was considered to be monstrous. Instinctively Potts refused, claiming that the Cups were “too damn big” and in Potts’s defence, he was right. The design for the 32-ounce cups was square on the bottom and resembled your average milk cartoon.

      • DarkWasp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is fair lol. I’m Canadian and when I was 17-20 I’d consume around 4-6 cans a day which was a crazy amount to myself and most people. 20+ seems nuts just financially.

        • CIWS-30@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agree. Even recently, I would have up to 5-6 cans worth myself (have since cut down a lot), but alongside the financial cost, there’s also the acid eating away at your stomach lining and the excess caffeine to worry about alongside the Aspartame.

          Frankly, given the stomach issues and acid reflux that too much soda can give you, I would imagine that people (even sodaholics) would have to stop much sooner than 20 due to all the other issues involved with sodas before the problems with Aspartame would even come into the picture.

          Not to say that I’m not leery of Aspartame, but diet Soda has other major issues beside it.

          • chakan2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The soda acid thing is also a myth. The PH level of your stomach acid is much higher than soda.

            Edit: Yes, had that backwards…but my point stands…stomach acid is more acidic than soda. It’s not an issue.

            Yes…I concur, it’s terrible for your teeth.

            • VulKendov@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lower pH means stronger acid. Soda is not more acidic than you stomach acid. The real danger that the acidity of soda poses is to your teeth.

              • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And considering the knock-on effects to the rest of your body from your teeth, it’s not an issue to sneeze at.

            • downpunxx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              cut a stomach open, spread the stomach acid on a painted car hood, eat that shit right off. saying it’s the same ph as stomach acid, is like saying 1 of a thing is safe but 2 of the same thing has to be safe as the 1 thing. idiocy. and said with such confidence. ah the internetz, such a boon to humanity.

      • Madison_rogue@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        A Big Gulp is 30 ounces, 20 cans of coke is 240 ounces of soda. That’s a lot of Big Gulps. That said the Double Gulp, the largest size 7-11 offers, tops out at 50 ounces. Yet you’d have to drink almost five of those to reach 20 cans.

        in 2018 The United States consumption of soda per capita was 38.87 gallons per year, or 13.6 ounces of soda per day. Which was down from 45.5 gallons per year in 2010.

      • ours@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Remind me of the “Parks and rec” joke about “child-sized soda”: it’s the size of a small child!

  • cooljacob204@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Regardless of this corrupt shit, in general studies show that it’s safe in normal quantities. Health wise it’s much better then sugar.

  • huge_clock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think it’s sort of a catch 22. The people that tend to be the most knowledgeable about a particular science often have industry experience doing the exact thing you want them to study now. The idea that people could study the effects of aspartame for decades but are now “tainted” because they used to work for a soda company doesn’t necessarily square up to economic reality.

    If however, you choose to put your foot in the sand there you’re going to have a bunch of people on a committee that have no idea what they are doing (which by the way people will also criticize you for) Remember when Trump appointed senior cabinet positions to people with completely unrelated experience? Such as Ben Carson (a former medical doctor) being appointed secretary of housing.

    It’s a lose/lose situation I’m not sure what you all are expecting.

    • usrtrv@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Similar to how oil companies researched global warming. They have the scientists in the right field and the data, but corporate interests will cover up things that don’t align to their business models.

      Overall if the study is sound, other scientists can chime in and prove or disprove their results. Really the laymen should take studies (done by anyone) with a grain of salt until the wider community comes to a consensus,

      • huge_clock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That situation is a bit different. Oil Companies performed proprietary research internally and promoted those results as scientific. Whereas, the implication in this post here is that anyone who ever worked for an oil company in climate science can no longer do climate science for an agency.

  • danielfgom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    From the start I’ve never drunk all these Zero drinks because after reading a little about just how poisonous aspartame is, it was obvious this stuff shouldn’t be consumed.

    I’d rather drink sugar sugar than aspartame. Having said that I’ve just stopped drinking all of these sweet drinks all together.

    I hope the truth gets out to the public

    • ours@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same, I don’t think it’s a good habit to regularly drink sugary drinks even if they have “fake” sugar in them. It’s just these companies finding ways for us to consume more of their product without the guilt of calories.

      When I’m thirsty I drink water. And very rarely will I drink something else with real sugar like juice, a beer, or even rarer an actual soda.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Having said that I’ve just stopped drinking all of these sweet drinks all together.

      I personally just got tired of them. Alcohol-free beer (EDIT: yes, I know it’s not quite beer) is nice too.

    • JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I moved to natural sources (sugar and stevia) and I only do half doses. All this stuff is way too sweet and it’s crazy that the boomer generation just let things get so out of hand.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “because after reading a little about just how poisonous aspartame is”

      Presumably on websites with titles like “Natural News” and “Infowars”.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m the same, never drank zero for the same reasons and I pick ordinary sugar when I drink soda (not often).

      I also don’t use fluoride in toothpaste and that’s another thing people think is weird. But my teeth are absolutely fine after over 20 years of doing this. I use kingfisher tooth paste without fluoride.

        • 1984@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dentists recommends using flouride, so naturally most people do. But I just feel uneasy about it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    In May, the World Health Organization issued an alarming report that declared widely used non-sugar sweeteners like aspartame are likely ineffective for weight loss, and long term consumption may increase the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in adults.

    A few months later, WHO declared aspartame, a key ingredient in Diet Coke, to be a “possible carcinogen”, then quickly issued a third report that seemed to contradict its previous findings – people could continue consuming the product at levels determined to be safe decades ago, before new science cited by WHO raised health concerns.

    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).

    That same day, WHO’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (Jecfa), which makes consumption recommendations, reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg of body weight.

    Ruskin said the move also marks a change in direction for WHO, which in 2015 distanced itself from Ilsi when its executive board found the group to be a “private entity” and voted to discontinue its official relationship.

    In the “avalanche” of media coverage of WHO’s designation of aspartame as a possible carcinogen, many outlets noted WHO’s split decision, or reported that WHO found the product to be safe.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This kind of shit makes people distrustful of science in general. Way to go, guys.

  • charliespider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand how people are so surprised to discover that experts in a particular field or industry…

    GASP!

    Have worked or continue to work in said field or industry!

    Is it really a surprise that an expert in the subject of aspartame works or has worked for one of the biggest users of aspartame? You think aspartame experts are going to work for car companies?

    Like if you wanted to find an expert on say… petroleum, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they have worked for an oil company. That said, any obvious conflicts of interest should be noted in any reports so that others are aware, but someone’s expertise shouldn’t be immediately discounted.

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the shock is that they work in the industry as much as it opens up a LOT of possibilities for a conflict of interest.

      When you’re taking ANY measurement ever, conflicts of interest are bad. And what’s at stake here is the health and safety of anyone who eats aspartame, which is a lot.

      • charliespider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Point taken and why I think any conflicts just need to be noted and weighed with the rest of the facts, as opposed to completely discarding someone’s expertise.

        • YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think the expertise would get discarded so much as their conclusions. Again the conclusion is that the levels we are ingesting are safe. I don’t want to trust anyone who could profit from the sale of the product they are judging the safety of.

          In the 1940s tobacco companies said cigarettes were safe, in the 1950s and 60s we took thalidomide because it was marked as safe, in the 1970s oil companies said petroleum emissions weren’t of any concern.

          There is a pattern here and it’s very, very simple

          Profits>everything

  • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    these kinds of conflicts of interests need to be disclosed properly, clearly and up front, and folks need to be critical until its sufficiently peer reviewed

    whether other findings agree with these isnt relevant, its still extremely important that folks know that corporate interests might be colouring any given paper

    researchers in a given field are practically always going to have jobs with big players in those fields, but taking biases into account is still important for interpreting findings

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This type of corruption should require those involved getting lengthy prison sentences to.

    Instead they’ll get a reprimand and a reminder not to do it again

  • Meldroc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still wonder if artificial sweeteners mess with metabolism, say by training people to ignore satiety signals, which would be why we saw that study a few days back saying artificial sweeteners are associated with weight gain.

    • NotYourSocialWorker@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      One theory is that the body doesn’t know if the sweetness is sugar or sweetener. So it produces insulin to take care of it. When the level of insulin gets too high the body tries to compensate by eating more. If that “more” is more sweetener…

      • soma@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I’m no expert, that doesn’t sound correct to me. I’d expect highly specific binding dependent on the chemical structure of glucose would be required to elevate insulin. A quick search seems to support that. I’m sure there are lots of studies on this that you could find if interested.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s just as valid, if not maybe a little more, than the guy claiming it is the reason. People are allowed to discuss their personal opinions and they should need to include that it’s only a sample size of one and not independently verified. No one should be stupid enough to think they’re claiming otherwise and need to say it out loud that they don’t trust it.

            • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anecdotes are not “personal opinions” and they certainly aren’t valid or valuable in the context of evaluating scientific claims.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, it isn’t valuable for scientific evaluation. They are valid though. Anyway, the other comment was just a claim without any supporting evidence for it but no one felt they needed to point that out.

      • doggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless I’m missing something this seems trivial to test. Just test blood sugar before and after drinking a diet soda. If bloods sugar goes down then the sweetener likely caused a release of insulin. If it doesn’t change then it didn’t.

        It seems petty far-fetched. If artificial sweeteners caused a runaway insulin spike then I would expect them to cause a lot of cases of diabetic shock.

  • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A story as old as time: People who make decisions being paid by people who benefit from the “right” decisions.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Okay, so, let me get this straight. This panel said aspartame is safe, but it’s got a conflict of interest, so we should ignore all that and fall back to the conventional wisdom that…aspartame is safe?