834
submitted 10 months ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

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
[-] Neato@kbin.social 187 points 10 months 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 60 points 10 months ago

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

[-] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 33 points 10 months ago

It's official: Cancer causes cancer.

[-] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

One step closer cancer causing mice

[-] Rowsdower@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Fun fact. A potential side effect of many cancer treatments is... cancer

[-] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

just gotta hope it kills the old cancer before it gives you a new cancer

[-] oce@jlai.lu -5 points 10 months ago

How hecking cancerous cancer is?

[-] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago
[-] Mawks@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months 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 28 points 10 months ago

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

[-] neshura@bookwormstory.social 9 points 10 months 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 2 points 10 months 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 10 points 10 months 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.

[-] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago
[-] Voli@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Migraine since it made me sensitive to light as well, and like blank spots in my vision as well.

[-] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago

Oof sorry for my pedantic question.

[-] jampacked@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I get this weird ass headache from it.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months 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.

[-] PreachHard@mander.xyz -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 4 points 10 months 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.

[-] PreachHard@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months 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 2 points 10 months 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 0 points 10 months 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.

[-] Rowsdower@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 1 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Rowsdower@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months 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

[-] Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee -5 points 10 months 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 10 points 10 months 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 5 points 10 months 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 7 points 10 months 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.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
834 points (96.2% liked)

World News

31424 readers
1764 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS