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

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-28 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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???

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

!casualconversation@lemmy.world

Create post

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you’ll make some friends in the process.


RULES

  • Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
  • Encourage conversation in your post
  • Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
  • Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
  • No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
  • Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information

Related discussion-focused communities

Community stats

  • 8

    Monthly active users

  • 483

    Posts

  • 13K

    Comments