this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
186 points (98.4% liked)

United Kingdom

4087 readers
215 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd be interested to know how much of that is from reduced sales, how much is from products reducing the overall sweetness, and how much is the products being full of (controversially potentially worse) artificial sweeteners and other crap to replace the sugar.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Where are you getting that they're potentially worse? They may have some adverse effects but they seem minor compared to sugar. For aspartame there seems to be some studies possibly linking it with cancer, but those are very limited and even after those studies came out the WHO reaffirmed it's safety at normal levels. Meanwhile actual sugar has been proven to cause diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc. Sucralose doesn't seem to show any adverse effects at normal doses.

A lot of the controversy on artificial sweeteners comes from the sugar lobby combined with moral panics and conspiracies on using "chemicals" in foods.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I did say "controversially" and "potentially" :)

I think it was the WHO who mentioned it last year, but it keeps cropping up each year from various university studies - of course I'll have only ever read the news reports of those studies.

I absolutely agree though, I'd be highly suspicious of sugar company (or high-fructose-syrup) lobbying.

Personally my preference is for "things to just be less sweet" (like why does some bread or soup have sugar in now?!?), though I suspect it's a bit of a minority opinion :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I refuse to have anything with Stevia in it as it gives me the shits. And Aspartame tastes weird.

I do have less sugar as a result, though!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The WHO advises not to use them https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline

Personally I don't agree with their reasoning, but given the controversy I don't feel comfortable forcing them on people.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

They advise not to use them for weight control. That's a bit different than what you're implying.