2年前

Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group

www.theguardian.com Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group

Guidelines on Diet Coke ingredient from consultants tied to alleged industry front group an ‘obvious conflict of interest’, report says

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.

News @lemmy.world

Flying Squid @lemmy.world

2年前

Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group

www.theguardian.com /business/2023/aug/17/who-panel-aspartame-diet-coke-guidelines

306 44

TechNews @radiation.party

irradiated @radiation.party

BOT

2年前

Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group

www.theguardian.com /business/2023/aug/17/who-panel-aspartame-diet-coke-guidelines

3 1

您正在查看单个对话串。

208 评论

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
- Source for aspartame being poisonous? That's the precise opposite to scientific consensus and frankly sounds like conspiranoia.
- "because after reading a little about just how poisonous aspartame is"
  Presumably on websites with titles like "Natural News" and "Infowars".
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Ok, so the WHO are using dubious sources?
  
  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.
- 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.
- There's no evidence of aspartame being harmful to humans and there's been a shit ton of research on it from various people
  
  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 ...
  
  You don't like the taste. You just don't like the taste.
  
  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.
- 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.
- Having said that I’ve just stopped drinking all of these sweet drinks all together.
  I personally just got tired of them. Alcohol-free beer (EDIT: yes, I know it's not quite beer) is nice too.
  
  I've always wondered why anyone would drink beer without alcohol in it. I always assumed it was only ever used by alcoholics trying to kick their addiction, or desperate teenagers who can't get a fake ID.
  Do you just really like the taste of beer?
  
  A good alcohol free beer is actually decent. It misses a bit of mouth feel and robustness a proper beer has.
  Alcohol Free Prosecco is actually amazing. Fizzy, yummy, great burps.
  The decent alcohol free stuff is actually 0.5%. So, it's still a beer. It's just been brewed or post-processed to have 0.5% alcohol.
  I've had AF Gin & Tonics that have been amazing, and others that just taste like raw tonic.
  Remember that beers are more than just lagers. I love alcohol free light hoppy IPAs (seriously, basically water, a hint of barley, a hint of yeast, and a nice juicy hoppyness), alcohol free sours (some of these end up being just like juice), and so on. Sometimes the off styles of beers make for better AF ones!
  I haven't found a decent AF pale ale, lager, or many of the other more popular styles. They seem to be brewed more like a beer with alcohol taken out, rather than specifically tailored/crafted to being an alcohol free beer.
  I'm going to say "you" a lot in this next bit, but I'm not targeting actual you. Just more, throwing my opinion out there.
  IMO, if you are only drinking beer because it gets you drunk, then perhaps you have a bad relationship with alcohol?
  If you are drinking beers because it's a social thing, that's cool. As long as you can also drink sprite and do the social things. Otherwise, perhaps you don't have the best social circles?
  If you don't like beer, that's also fine.
  
  I don't have time to be intoxicated, so not getting drunk is good (I also get drunk easier than most people due to smaller body mass and fast metabolism).
  I mean, the answer to your last question is - I do like the taste of good IPA, but that's not what alcohol-free beer gives you. The latter for me is like pleasant soda with the taste of bread without excess sweetness (this is very important, I just hate sweet drinks).
  
  There's something about the after taste of NA beer that irritates me. I've found a few I like (Heineken and Athletic Brewing) but even they have some weird aftertaste that I can't put my finger on. Maybe its the lack of alcohol that makes it taste off.
  
  I think the one Birra Moretti does isn't too bad either
  
  I'll have to keep an eye out for that one, have never had it.
  
  Well, the one I was thinking about is Baltika 0, I suppose it's not being exported to the USA, ahem.
- 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.
- I'm the same, never drank zero for the same reasons and I pick ordinary sugar when I drink soda (not often).
  I also don't use fluoride in toothpaste and that's another thing people think is weird. But my teeth are absolutely fine after over 20 years of doing this. I use kingfisher tooth paste without fluoride.
  
  Why the fluoride? Only heard about it from the "the pineal gland is the eye of the soul" kind of people
  
  Dentists recommends using flouride, so naturally most people do. But I just feel uneasy about it.
  
  Why?
  
  It caused staining on my teeth so my dentist said to eat less sugar and brush correctly if I didn't want that. It's not really a big deal.
  
  What is your opinion on homosexuality in frogs?

208 评论