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.
A lot of strange defending of this corrupt behavior here. The fact that this corruption exists immediately calls into question the safety of the recommendations. It won’t be the first time Americans were killed for corporate profits.
A lot of scientists who actually know the studies and biochemistry involved, actually. Not “defending of this corrupt behavior”, but just pointing out that corrupt behavior doesn’t negate the science itself.
Corruption is a part of companies and capitalism. Even the “good” companies, like renewables, are corrupt and do corrupt things.
(chemical in consumer product) is made of SCIENCE therefore it is OBJECTIVELY GOOD and if you have issues with that chemical you must be a TREE HUGGING CRYSTAL HEALING HIPPIE!
Heard that sort of shit about glyphosate too, especially on
I’m sorry that people actually knowing biochemistry is such a problem for you.
Question: How can a dipeptide of two common amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that dissociate in your stomach cause negative health impacts?
Everything has a negative health impact, literally even water does. The question is always about cumulative and spontaneous dosage. At what point does it become bad for you.
One common explanation I’ve seen for aspartame is that it makes your body think you’re drinking sugar while no sugar is being absorbed. This is then potentially harmful for those with a predisposition for diabetes.
That is a known effect, yes. And an understandable one that occurs just because of the sweet receptor response. But that has nothing to do with the effects being claimed by others about it.
It’s possible that the increased risk of diabetes snowballs into an increased risk of cancer from diabetes’ secondary conditions. Making claims about “these amino acids are harmless so the substance is harmless” disregards the possible chains of events that could actually cause more conditions.
That is something that can be researched and would apply to anything that tastes sweet, of course, if true. But that’s still not the things being claimed by people about the impacts aspartame is having on them.
Essentially, they’re making claims akin to the MSG conspiracies, with the same lack of evidence for anything. Including with placebo studies showing the people claiming these effects also claiming it when they think they’re consuming the substance, but they aren’t.
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.
I want to get rid of it because I want a non sugar coke that doesn’t taste like burned tar soaked in urine
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.
