833
Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
833 points (96.2% liked)
World News
32282 readers
641 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(chemical in consumer product) is made of SCIENCE therefore it is OBJECTIVELY GOOD and if you have issues with that chemical you must be a TREE HUGGING CRYSTAL HEALING HIPPIE!
Heard that sort of shit about glyphosate too, especially on
I'm sorry that people actually knowing biochemistry is such a problem for you.
Question: How can a dipeptide of two common amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that dissociate in your stomach cause negative health impacts?
Just as easily as a molecule with two carbons, one nitrogen, one oxygen, and a hydrogen. Just because chemicals are simple doesn't mean they are safe.
That's not really an answer. Any impact that aspartame would have, the same impact would occur from phenylalanine and aspartic acid consumption. And considering we both have no evidence for such impacts and both amino acids are critical for this whole being alive thing, that means there is no biochemical basis for claims of harm in the first place.
My point is that just because a compound is simple or easily understood doesn't mean it is safe. What if excess phenylalanine is toxic? It's not completely outside of the realm of possibility.
For the record, I agree with you that it is unlikely that aspartame is toxic and the only studies that show this use non-human analogues. It is, however, important to play devil's advocate in scientific settings.
I read some study that aspartame changed the gut flora. Sugar probably does the same thing though. But sometimes there's interactions that science forget to study
Everything has a negative health impact, literally even water does. The question is always about cumulative and spontaneous dosage. At what point does it become bad for you.
One common explanation I've seen for aspartame is that it makes your body think you're drinking sugar while no sugar is being absorbed. This is then potentially harmful for those with a predisposition for diabetes.
That is a known effect, yes. And an understandable one that occurs just because of the sweet receptor response. But that has nothing to do with the effects being claimed by others about it.
It's possible that the increased risk of diabetes snowballs into an increased risk of cancer from diabetes' secondary conditions. Making claims about "these amino acids are harmless so the substance is harmless" disregards the possible chains of events that could actually cause more conditions.
That is something that can be researched and would apply to anything that tastes sweet, of course, if true. But that's still not the things being claimed by people about the impacts aspartame is having on them.
Essentially, they're making claims akin to the MSG conspiracies, with the same lack of evidence for anything. Including with placebo studies showing the people claiming these effects also claiming it when they think they're consuming the substance, but they aren't.