this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
833 points (96.2% liked)

World News

32328 readers
713 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's not really an answer. Any impact that aspartame would have, the same impact would occur from phenylalanine and aspartic acid consumption. And considering we both have no evidence for such impacts and both amino acids are critical for this whole being alive thing, that means there is no biochemical basis for claims of harm in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

My point is that just because a compound is simple or easily understood doesn't mean it is safe. What if excess phenylalanine is toxic? It's not completely outside of the realm of possibility.

For the record, I agree with you that it is unlikely that aspartame is toxic and the only studies that show this use non-human analogues. It is, however, important to play devil's advocate in scientific settings.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I read some study that aspartame changed the gut flora. Sugar probably does the same thing though. But sometimes there's interactions that science forget to study