Not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic? This source says that Aspartame is perfectly safe unless you consume 10 cans of soft drinks per day. And even when you exceed that, it doesnt mean it is harmful, just that there is not enough evidence to prove it isnt.
Sugar is proven to be harmful even in small amounts, so Aspartame is better in every way. Its a shame I hate the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners, but I dont consume a lot of sugar anyway.
“IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically, for hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer).”.
Industry astroturfing and funding partial “science” has been highly successful.
You know what else is carcinogenic? Breathing contaminated air, which is present just about everywhere on the planet, besides maybe on mountaintops or something. But the effects in “normal” areas are so little that it doesnt make sense to worry about. The data indicating carcinogenicity in sweeteners is so vague and inconclusive that they cant even certainly say “how” bad it is, just that it maybe has some kind of influence. Thats a million times better than actual sugar with thousands of studies proving its harmful effects.
People will drink sweet stuff whether you want it or not. The question is if they should drink the ones that give you a 1% chance of a bad liver and diabetes, or the ones that may have a .0001% chance of promoting some kind of cancer? (these arent supposed to be actual realistic values, if it wasnt obvious, as risks depend on a million factors)
So you in favour of governments taking actions that remove products from the market and remove the choice from people? You like artificial sweeteners so everyone should have them?
Breathing contaminated air is a concern and does need to be addressed.
Whatabouttery isn’t helpful here. "If you aren’t concerned by pollution, you shouldn’t be concerned by sweeteners. Or… We could be concerned about both.
Downplaying risks to plant seeds of doubt has been successful in tobacco, fossil fuels etc. It is why industry invests in partial “science”. Parroting those lines doesn’t make society better off.
Many industries are casting doubt on polluting behaviour with the “conclusively prove the link or it’s speculation” argument. It’s why the Precautionary Principle is important.
Aspartame is great though: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
Not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic? This source says that Aspartame is perfectly safe unless you consume 10 cans of soft drinks per day. And even when you exceed that, it doesnt mean it is harmful, just that there is not enough evidence to prove it isnt.
Sugar is proven to be harmful even in small amounts, so Aspartame is better in every way. Its a shame I hate the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners, but I dont consume a lot of sugar anyway.
Perfectly safe, yo…
“IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically, for hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer).”.
Industry astroturfing and funding partial “science” has been highly successful.
You know what else is carcinogenic? Breathing contaminated air, which is present just about everywhere on the planet, besides maybe on mountaintops or something. But the effects in “normal” areas are so little that it doesnt make sense to worry about. The data indicating carcinogenicity in sweeteners is so vague and inconclusive that they cant even certainly say “how” bad it is, just that it maybe has some kind of influence. Thats a million times better than actual sugar with thousands of studies proving its harmful effects.
People will drink sweet stuff whether you want it or not. The question is if they should drink the ones that give you a 1% chance of a bad liver and diabetes, or the ones that may have a .0001% chance of promoting some kind of cancer? (these arent supposed to be actual realistic values, if it wasnt obvious, as risks depend on a million factors)
So you in favour of governments taking actions that remove products from the market and remove the choice from people? You like artificial sweeteners so everyone should have them?
Breathing contaminated air is a concern and does need to be addressed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Whatabouttery isn’t helpful here. "If you aren’t concerned by pollution, you shouldn’t be concerned by sweeteners. Or… We could be concerned about both.
Downplaying risks to plant seeds of doubt has been successful in tobacco, fossil fuels etc. It is why industry invests in partial “science”. Parroting those lines doesn’t make society better off.
Many industries are casting doubt on polluting behaviour with the “conclusively prove the link or it’s speculation” argument. It’s why the Precautionary Principle is important.