835
Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
208 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 186 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's official: Cancer causes cancer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent