- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- hackernews@derp.foo
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 ( @Neato@kbin.social ) 113•10 months agoWe’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.
Kingofthezyx ( @Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee ) 9•10 months agoThat’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 ( @cobra89@beehaw.org ) 12•10 months agoNo, 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 ( @CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca ) 5•10 months agoThat 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 ( @Neato@kbin.social ) 6•10 months agoI 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.
PreachHard ( @PreachHard@mander.xyz ) 2•10 months agoMy 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 ( @zagaberoo@beehaw.org ) 4•10 months agoHow 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.
Swedneck ( @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ) 2•10 months agoAnd 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 ( @Rowsdower@lemmy.ca ) 2•10 months agoI 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 ( @zagaberoo@beehaw.org ) 2•10 months agoWhy not though? The health impact of moderate diet soda consumption seems to be pretty negligible.
Rowsdower ( @Rowsdower@lemmy.ca ) 2•10 months agoDiet 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 ( @PreachHard@mander.xyz ) 1•10 months agoIt’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 ( @zagaberoo@beehaw.org ) 2•10 months agoThat 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.
Mongostein ( @Mongostein@lemmy.ca ) 1•10 months agoEven if aspartame does cause cancer you get the choice of cancer or diabetes when you drink cola, so whatever. Just don’t drink it.
Silverseren ( @Silverseren@kbin.social ) 87•10 months agoOkay, 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.
LucidNightmare ( @LucidNightmare@lemm.ee ) 5•10 months agoI 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.
cooljacob204 ( @cooljacob204@kbin.social ) 25•10 months agoRegardless of this corrupt shit, in general studies show that it’s safe in normal quantities. Health wise it’s much better then sugar.
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 1•10 months ago
What’s a normal quantity? Keep in mind that caffeine is addictive, driving consumption. Not a good combination to use chemicals that are safe in small quantities, in a product designed to be addictive.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 18•10 months 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?
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 14•10 months ago
A lot of strange defending of this corrupt behavior here. The fact that this corruption exists immediately calls into question the safety of the recommendations. It won’t be the first time Americans were killed for corporate profits.
Silverseren ( @Silverseren@kbin.social ) 10•10 months agoA lot of scientists who actually know the studies and biochemistry involved, actually. Not “defending of this corrupt behavior”, but just pointing out that corrupt behavior doesn’t negate the science itself.
Corruption is a part of companies and capitalism. Even the “good” companies, like renewables, are corrupt and do corrupt things.
jeanma ( @jeanma@lemmy.ninja ) English1•10 months agojust pointing out that corrupt behavior doesn’t negate the science itself.
But when corruption doesn’t let the science happens? You know, in 2020.
Silverseren ( @Silverseren@kbin.social ) 9•10 months agoThe science has been done by dozens of independent scientific teams around the world for decades. They have repeatedly shown the lack of health impact from aspartame.
phoenixz ( @phoenixz@lemmy.ca ) 12•10 months agoThis 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
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!
Lols [they/them] ( @Lols@lemm.ee ) 8•10 months agothese 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
Nioxic ( @Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English5•10 months agoDid 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.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English6•10 months ago
Of course they still tell diabetics to keep chugging down carbs and just buying more and more insulin…
To be fair, that’s pretty much what a lot of non-diabetics do, except they make their own insulin.
reksas ( @reksas@sopuli.xyz ) 3•10 months agoNo matter what they say, i’ll assume aspartamine is poison and refuse to eat anything that has it.
Policeshootout ( @Policeshootout@lemmy.ca ) 1•10 months agoI think the same thing about everything! Never believe anything that doesn’t align with my personal beliefs no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary!
reksas ( @reksas@sopuli.xyz ) 3•10 months agoI just dont want to risk it, because i’ll be the only one who faces the consequences if it causes cancer after all. It also tastes awful anyway, i’d rather drink completely unsweetened drinks.
- downpunxx ( @downpunxx@kbin.social ) 3•10 months ago
bad news : “Guideline on Diet Coke ingredient by consultants tied to industry is ‘obvious conflict of interest’ and ‘not credible’, report says”
protip : don’t drink or eat anything with any amount of Aspartame in it, as it isn’t safe, or, you know, party on garth, it’s your life, how long and healthy it will be sometimes is completely up to you
dunning_cougar ( @dunning_cougar@waveform.social ) 2•10 months agoWait ‘til they unveil the shady business deals between Pfizer and the good folks who told us “safe and effective.”
Uranium3006 ( @Uranium3006@kbin.social ) 5•10 months agoEnjoy the ventilator
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 4•10 months ago
the good folks who told us “safe and effective.”
…weren’t wrong, and we’ve got a global vaccinated population to prove it, so I’m not sure what your point is.
SpiderShoeCult ( @SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz ) 1•10 months agoI’m shocked, shocked I say that some would accuse such an organization as the WHO of being highly corrupt and political! My good sir, I shall not stand thy slander of such a useless appendage whose perceived power lies only in the fact that it’s named ‘the World health organization’. Why, how dare you criticize an organization that has tippytoed around the associations between covid and China for fear of losing its precious funding and the sinecures they provide?
Good day, sir!