this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
395 points (95.8% liked)

World News

32088 readers
1084 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
[–] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I was under the impression the research showed that there was a risk but you needed to consume an exorbitant amount to get there. Around 20+ cans of coke a day which the majority of people don’t do.

[–] Fluke@discuss.online 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The World Health Organization said it was safe up to a certain level. The people in the WHO who said that work for Coca-Cola.

This means we can't rely on the recommendation, and the actual "safe" amount may be much lower than that. The article goes into good depth and gives counterarguments too.

It is important to note that in reality there is no safe amount for a carcinogen. Sometimes a threshold is set to reduce risk to a reasonable amount in necessary workplace exposure or medical treatments.

The truth is, I think we'll all eventually realize any sweetener should be seen as candy, not a thirst quencher.

[–] Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Thank you being basically the only person in the thread who actually read the article.

The part where they said "aspartame is probably bad" wasn't the corrupt part. The corrupt part was when they put an addendum saying "a little bit of cancer is okay as a treat"

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I read somewhere that asparteme doesn’t accumulate and just passes through the body, which was an argument for having a regular intake below the threshold to be not a risk. With this revelation though, that seems sus now too.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Around 20+ cans of coke a day which the majority of people don’t do.

This guy has never met an American. Ever heard of a Big Gulp? We literally had private companies engineer bigger soda cups to handle how much fucking soda Americans drink.

[–] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

A Big Gulp is 30 ounces, 20 cans of coke is 240 ounces of soda. That's a lot of Big Gulps. That said the Double Gulp, the largest size 7-11 offers, tops out at 50 ounces. Yet you'd have to drink almost five of those to reach 20 cans.

in 2018 The United States consumption of soda per capita was 38.87 gallons per year, or 13.6 ounces of soda per day. Which was down from 45.5 gallons per year in 2010.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We literally had private companies engineer bigger soda cups to handle how much fucking soda Americans drink.

This is a really weird statement. Like it was some sort of feat of engineering to manufacture larger cups.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Very arguably, with 1970's manufacturing standards, and how much 32 ounces of liquid weighs, it was an engineering feat at the time. So much so that the originals looked more like a milk carton.

https://physicalculturestudy.com/2017/08/31/the-history-of-the-big-gulp/

Potts’s desperation caught the attention of Coca-Cola, who in 1976 sent representatives to the merchandise manager with a strange proposition. Coca Cola wanted to create a new 32 ounce cup for their drinks, a previously unheard of amount. The largest size at the time was 20 ounces, and even that was considered to be monstrous. Instinctively Potts refused, claiming that the Cups were “too damn big” and in Potts’s defence, he was right. The design for the 32-ounce cups was square on the bottom and resembled your average milk cartoon.

[–] ours@lemmy.film 2 points 1 year ago

Remind me of the "Parks and rec" joke about "child-sized soda": it's the size of a small child!

[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Don't want to share my life story, but I did for a time, got to about a twelve pack and a half a day of diet coke when I was 20.

My reward was not weight loss, but an a-fib. and half a life expectancy.

I don't blame the diet coke because I was the one buying and drinking it. But it is important people understand that something is wrong in that stuff.

Just as I wouldn't blame cigarettes for giving me lung cancer, but I would want others to know it can.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apart from the aspartame, that's also like 900mg of caffeine a day, which is over twice the recommended amount, and 700mg of sodium.

[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup. what else can I say except poor self control and shortcuts are a mean combination.

I eat a lot healthier now, but that mistake isn't one that just goes away.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unmedicated, I would crave soda like a fucking sugar tick. I'd eat until I was sick, then eat some more. Actually rotted a bunch of my teeth with my shitty habits and poor self-control. Needed several root canals.... ugh....

Medicated, I have soda maybe once per month or every other month. I don't have uncontrollable cravings for sugar anymore. It's fucking great!!

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I think self medicating with caffeine may have been part of it. Congrats on the cutting back.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

You should absolutely blame the Diet Coke and the execs that push it. Almost every aspect of eating the food we need to live is distorted by people trying to make as much money as possible at the expense of our health. They know it. They spend billions doing it. You likely wouldn't have been consuming it or so much of it if it wasn't on every billboard and commercial and was at the back of the store in plain boxes without the big 'sale' or 'bogof' stickers. It doesn't have to be this way and you shouldn't blame yourself or any other individual for a social problem.

[–] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's so unfortunate, thanks for sharing that. Hope you're doing okay.

[–] ineedaunion@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

They do in Múrica. I've seen it