like, it’s caffeine and water and brown, who cares. i drink diet soda so it’s no calories, no sugar. versus the stereotype starbucks order, why is soda so demonized
the whole sort of basically woo stuff about oh there’s antioxidants there which give you a 3% lower risk of skin cancer after the age of 65 like come on that doesn’t count
Your reasoning is on level with religious people claiming that atheists have to prove that god doesn’t exist.
How do you prove that you are not a murderer?
Oh god dude you’d kill us so quick in the pharmaceutical industry.
EVERYTHING is trying to kill us, were lucky when something doesn’t - so assuming a chemical we randomly made that tastes like sugar doesn’t emulate it 100% isn’t unreasonable
(and what do you know, there even are links between aspartame in diet coke and cancer)
The statement you think is supporting your belief is actually saying the opposite. WHO specifically does not claim that aspartame cause cancer.
However, what they did state is there was no reason to change the recommended acceptable daily intake level of 40 mg per kg of body weight per day .
Also, The FDA disagrees with IARC’s (what you refer to as WHO) conclusion that these studies support classifying aspartame as a possible carcinogen to humans. FDA scientists reviewed the scientific information included in IARC’s review in 2021 when it was first made available and identified significant shortcomings in the studies on which IARC relied. FDA also pointed out that JECF (also WHO) did not raise safety concerns for aspartame under the current levels of use and did not change the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).
So yeah… Just believing journalists trying to click bait you is probably more likely to give you cancer than following the recommendation from WHO regarding daily intake of aspartame.
I didn’t mention any regulatory bodies specifically, cause health should be generally referenced from as many sources as possible - but all those numbers are based on theoretical doses on rats, your coefficient of safety is gonna be that close to the theoretical??
Especially when there’s probably billions in companies like coke and Pepsi on the line, yet were still trending in the direction of stricter classification - you’re gonna risk your entire health on there being no bias???
You use a (heavily questioned) statement of an organization as a base for your claims when the organization explicitly doesn’t support your conclusion. It’s a fact that WHO still claims there is no dangers consuming the recommended daily amount.
The method used on rats to estimate the dangers is the method used when estimating dangers every other substances. So the argument is valid as long as you claim that every other substance cause cancer.
Then you end up nibbling on edges of the classic “the great aspartame conspiracy” but what you totally miss that “big sugar” is even more powerfull…
Nah I was lying to sound smart they almost for sure do human trials, but you’re totally lying too is the funniest part
Oh… More unsubstantiated claims from you… Well … have a nice Friday evening.
You’re the type of person who thinks plastics are perfectly safe because they are BPA free.
Everything is safe until it’s not.
I remember when doctors used to recommend smoking. I remember when doctors used to prescribe opiates for minor issues.
Basically, your logic sucks and I have zero reason to listen to you.
I just love how you end with “I have zero reason to listen to you” when no one has claimed such a thing and you were the one choosing to do the listening.
All of this because of me pointing out that WHO still claims that there is a daily amount of aspartame that is safe to consume and that the only thing you can prove is that something is unsafe and not the other way around.
By the way… If you think we should avoid aspartame because there is a suspicion that it might cause cancer I can imagine what you think about sugar, animal fat and protein which there is actual proof that it can cause everything from heart disease to cancer.