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
    link
    fedilink
    51 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
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

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

    • @Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      -11 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.

  • Silverseren
    link
    fedilink
    41 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.

      • Silverseren
        link
        fedilink
        01 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.

        • ColorcodedResistor
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          Or, better idea. How about we just use real sugar but just not put 40-60g per can. why is anyone consuming splenda or aspartame. don’t care if it chemically is simple and non harmful. GMO is fine, but gd humanity, chill. sugar didn’t murder anyone’s daughter, we don’t have to snuff it out with other chemicals.

          • @DeadGemini
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            deleted by creator

          • @Sassy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            11 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.

  • prole
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

  • @phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    01 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

  • cooljacob204
    link
    fedilink
    01 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.

  • @SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    I’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 it’s precious funding and the sinecures they provide?

    Good day, sir!