this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
48 points (100.0% liked)
World News
10 readers
2 users here now
News from around the world!
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I actually am.
Everyone has been saying it is for years, but I was never able to find any hard evidence despite it being the subject of numerous studies.
I feel kind of naive now.
That's because there hasn't really been any hard evidence. From the article itself:
"Probably carcinogenic" is thus the least supported one one can make a ruling with.
Then it all depends on the studies themselves too. Like one study on sunscreens found that oxybenzone caused endocrine disruptions in mice; when force-fed unrealistic amounts of it. Like what does that even tell us? Don't compulsively eat sunscreen, you could get sick?
The chemical was prohibited nonetheless, because generally a "better safe than sorry" approach is taken. These corporations don't want to face massive class-action lawsuits, so you can expect aspartame to be phased out.
Thanks for the explanation!
There are circumstances where the precautionary principle is good to apply. But overuse of it has really bad cumulative consequences.
I think that would depend on magnitude if probability was low or indeterminate?