this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
810 points (96.2% liked)

World News

32315 readers
784 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 54 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 24 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 9 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 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

I think that's what this is about.
It doesn't mean aspartame is bad and we are all going to die.
It means that perhaps the safe limits, risk reductions etc need to be re-assessed for them to be with regard to actual harm reduction... instead of the current possibility of "just enough harm that coke doesn't get blamed, but good profit can still be extracted" that these coke associates may-or-may-not have influenced.

It calls recommendations into doubt as opposed to the actual raw science.
AFAIK, aspartame has been widely studied. If it was a substance of actual risk, it would have been highlighted.

[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 17 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 45 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 8 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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 5 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 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

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

It makes people with ADHD sleepy right?

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Personally it doesn't even do that, it just literally does nothing whatsoever to me.

I have popped 200mg of caffeine pills and chewed a 4mg nicotine gum and the only effect is that the gum makes me cough.

[–] Doug7070@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not to defend diet coke (any kind of soda is not healthy for you, regardless), but I would generally assume that drinking 144oz (assuming 18x8oz cans/day) of any type of beverage that isn't plain old water would tend to cause some level of serious health effects, given that's more than your entire general recommended daily fluid intake from all sources. I feel like the general takeaway is that most food and drink is bad for you in excess, and companies constantly slapping "diet/low fat/low carb/etc." labels on junk food products that are marginally healthier than their peers gives a false impression that you can have your cake and eat it too in terms of negative health effects from these foods/drinks.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's basically how I've felt about it. If you're getting too much sugar from drinking soda, the correct response is to drink less soda - not substitute the sugar with something that tricks your body into thinking it's sweet.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But this ignores that people want to drink soda, and sugar-free soda lets them do that while also not consuming vast vast vast amounts of pointless calories.

You have to balance enjoyment with health, not doing so is why most diets fail, if you force yourself into a healthy diet that makes you sad you will almost inevitably end up falling back to the junk food because it makes you happy.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People want to eat lots of fat, sugary foods but that doesn't mean they should.

Certainly, it's about balancing enjoyment with health. However I think it's important to listen to what your body is telling you, when it's telling you you're having too much of something.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly not sure what your point is here, you seem to have ignored my argument and replied with a non-sequiteur.

Yeah, people should listen to their bodies, and their bodies say that they want to drink soda.
Now, is it better to drink soda with a shitload of calories, or soda with like 3 calories?

Most people have not trained themselves to pull off intuitive eating and thus their bodies just crave fats and carbs, so the best thing to do to improve their diet is to satisfy those cravings while consuming fewer calories.

This then provides an excellent motivation to re-calibrate your cravings as you realize that it is, in fact, possible to eat healthily without being miserable.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

The body isn't saying it wants soda. There is no drive from the body for soda. The body might want sugar, but it's also saying it's having too much. The brain is saying it likes the taste of soda, but taste isn't nutrition.

Most people have not trained themselves to pull off intuitive eating and thus their bodies just crave fats and carbs, so the best thing to do to improve their diet is to satisfy those cravings while consuming fewer calories.

The best thing to do to improve their diet is to improve their diet. The point is to learn that those cravings aren't right, so you can learn to identify your body's real cravings are. If you keep drinking diet soda you may be less likely to make meaningful change, at best you're delaying it.

[–] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 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.

[–] jonsnowman@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dont necessarily disagree with your overall point about Americans drinking a lot of soda, but I don't think pointing out that a company makes a cup a little smaller than 3 cans of soda is a very strong counterargument to the claim that it takes 20+ to be harmful...

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The largest Big Gulp is 50oz and when I was a kid, people leaned on free refills for them. A 50oz is almost a whole 2-liter.

You're not wrong, it's not the best example, but I've seen people go through numerous Big Gulps a day.

Hell, when I worked overnight as a security guard, one of my fellow guards who drink an entire 2-liter of Mountain Dew to himself every night.

It's hard for me to think about because I can't even get through a whole 16oz without stopping halfway because it's too syrupy.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

A 2 liter a day is still miles away from the amount you'd need to drink to reach unsafe levels.

I think you'd have to drink 3+ a day before you're at unsafe levels if you're 150lbs (and...well...if we are shitting on eating habits, 150 is a very light American).

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Tbf, about half of a Big Gulp is filled with ice.

[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Holy balls that's a large cup wtf. How popular are they? I mean, you see them in movies but that's all the info I can draw from lol.

[–] DarkWasp@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is fair lol. I’m Canadian and when I was 17-20 I’d consume around 4-6 cans a day which was a crazy amount to myself and most people. 20+ seems nuts just financially.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agree. Even recently, I would have up to 5-6 cans worth myself (have since cut down a lot), but alongside the financial cost, there's also the acid eating away at your stomach lining and the excess caffeine to worry about alongside the Aspartame.

Frankly, given the stomach issues and acid reflux that too much soda can give you, I would imagine that people (even sodaholics) would have to stop much sooner than 20 due to all the other issues involved with sodas before the problems with Aspartame would even come into the picture.

Not to say that I'm not leery of Aspartame, but diet Soda has other major issues beside it.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The soda acid thing is also a myth. The PH level of your stomach acid is much higher than soda.

Edit: Yes, had that backwards...but my point stands...stomach acid is more acidic than soda. It's not an issue.

Yes...I concur, it's terrible for your teeth.

[–] VulKendov@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lower pH means stronger acid. Soda is not more acidic than you stomach acid. The real danger that the acidity of soda poses is to your teeth.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

And considering the knock-on effects to the rest of your body from your teeth, it's not an issue to sneeze at.

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

cut a stomach open, spread the stomach acid on a painted car hood, eat that shit right off. saying it's the same ph as stomach acid, is like saying 1 of a thing is safe but 2 of the same thing has to be safe as the 1 thing. idiocy. and said with such confidence. ah the internetz, such a boon to humanity.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Sigh...come back after highschool chemistry.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong, it is nuts, health-wise and financially!

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (2 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 9 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.

[–] FoxAndKitten@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not a feat of engineering, a feat of marketing

[–] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 7 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.

[–] ours@lemmy.film 4 points 1 year ago

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

[–] ineedaunion@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

They do in Múrica. I've seen it