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.

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.

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

Literally every fucking health org has studied the chemical and found no evidence of health issues connected to it. It's only this one study that the IARC cites. And IARC doesn't take dosage into account either.

Regardless of people's taste for aspartame, it is literally not dangerous. It does taste dry. It doesn't taste like sugar. You do not have to enjoy it. But it is not bad for you.

edit: my badly worded comment got some discussion going which is great. I just want to say that I was being as hyperbolic as the worried people and I'm sorry. Of course it's not black or white. There are factors to consider, but what I was trying to express was that aspartame leans to the safe side rather than dangerous.

Obviously do not drink 25 cans of soda a day, obviously do not compensate for the fact that you're drinking a "light" product by consuming more of it. But a can a day isn't gonna ruin your health.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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

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.

Did WHO know this before announcement? Lol

I mean .. the people at WHO who hired them, must have known? (Conflict of interest is important in these kinds of health subjects)..

Of course they still tell diabetics to keep chugging down carbs and just buying more and more insulin...

I dont trust them.