this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
784 points (96.0% liked)

World News

32290 readers
1007 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 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
[–] danielfgom 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Source for aspartame being poisonous? That's the precise opposite to scientific consensus and frankly sounds like conspiranoia.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"because after reading a little about just how poisonous aspartame is"

Presumably on websites with titles like "Natural News" and "Infowars".

[–] danielfgom -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't remember it was years ago, but I got this from Mayo Clinic website today:

"A popular artificial sweetener that's widely found in sugar-free foods and beverages is being labeled as a possible cancer risk by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO's cancer research agency, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), determined aspartame to be a possible carcinogen after reviewing and assessing the potential carcinogenic effect of the sweetener, but says it's safe to consume in limited amounts."

So the WHO is saying it could cause cancer so drink it in limited amounts. So there may well be some issues with it. Definitely don't be drinking 5 or more diet sodas a day that's for sure.

I don't know why they don't use something like sorbitol instead. It doesn't have these issues and I never have any side effect from it whereas the few times I drank aspartame my body rejected it and kept sending it back to my tongue for me to scrape off, until all of it was out of my system.

No other food had ever done that to me.

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

IARC has been long since discredited at this point. You want to talk corruption, their panel to determine carcinogenicity was found to have been using a lawyer as the primary consultant who was working with various anti-science groups and he has been actively pushing to get certain things labeled as carcinogenic, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.

A separate WHO group, JECFA, which is actually about determining human health and safety in relation to specific chemicals (which is not IARC's job) has repeatedly produced opposing results to IARC. And that includes on their recent claims about aspartame.

[–] danielfgom 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, so the WHO are using dubious sources?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The WHO isn't really a combined organization. It's a diffuse set of disparate groups, panels, and NGOs. So they don't really have control over what any particular branch is doing.

IARC has been arguing that it's been doing its job under its defined parameters and I suppose they are. The problem is that, under their defined parameters, practically every single thing they investigate will be labeled as carcinogenic because everything is carcinogenic at a high enough dosage. Including being alive in the first place.

So I suppose the issue is more the media putting any stock or importance into IARC's announcements, when they aren't really saying anything meaningful about human health.

[–] quadropiss 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's no evidence of aspartame being harmful to humans and there's been a shit ton of research on it from various people

[–] danielfgom -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I can tell you is that the few times I drank it because I had no other option, I had the taste of it in my mouth all night and for several days afterwards. That's not normal.... My body was clearly rejecting it and sending it out though my tongue.

The only way to get rid of it was to scrape my tongue each time my body sent more back until it sent it all out via my tongue ...

[–] quadropiss 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't like the taste. You just don't like the taste.

[–] danielfgom 1 points 1 year ago

No it's not that. It tasted fine when I drank it but to have that pure aspartame taste for days thereafter is not fun.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

In the end, the aspartame in the coke Zero is likely less harmful than the sugar, and I would pick a coke Zero every day of the week over coke with sugar.

Sugar is just not healthy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 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.