Children’s sugar consumption halved since tax announcement, study finds
www.theguardian.com
Experts say success soft drinks shows expansion of tax to cover other foods and drinks is a ‘no brainer’
  • @IcyToesEnglish
    6•2 months ago

    My take wasnt that this is bad news. My take is moving from 1 poison to another is not a good thing. There are studies either way, and it’s worth considering where the scientists funding came from. Industry do invest in research for a reason which can result in more studies.

    The following summarises some of the risks. While my accuracy wasn’t great, the conclusion that aspartame is safe is highly questionable. If you’re promoting it like it’s a great thing, it’s a very bizarre take to have.

    https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe

    Sugar is rubbish, but doesn’t make artificial sweeteners good. Best things to drink are water, with maybe occasional fruit juice/smoothie. Not artificial rubbish.

    Oh and the World Health Organisation considers aspartame a possible carcinogen. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/aspartame-risks

    Football season is good and I’ve always preferred grass to astroturf. Industry are always gonna push the “there is no proof” until the deaths/illness become hard to ignore and the profit already made.

    • @[email protected]English
      5•2 months ago

      Understood and completely agreed with your sentiment. Obviously any time of sweetened drink is going to be less healthy than water. It is also undeniable that our corporate funded research papers have frequently resulted in and continue to result in biased and often completely non-credible conclusions.

      I still assert that “safe” is a relative term, and one issue I have is the lack of nuance associated with certain headlines. For example, the IARC Group B classification that the WHO cites is the same risk for cancer as “engine exhaust or occupational exposure as a hairdresser.” So yes, excessive aspartame consumption is definitely objectively bad for you compared to drinking water, but the cancer risk is not extensive compared to many other things we are exposed to on a regular basis.

      “JECFA concluded that the data evaluated indicated no sufficient reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.”

      Also I very much appreciate the great discussion on this!

      • @IcyToesEnglish
        2•2 months ago

        Very much so, and apologies if my last sentence was a bit heavy. I’m a bit too used to reddit and the astroturfing that goes on there.

        I agree with most of what you said here but do take exception to point about the risk not being extensive compared to other things we are exposed to. I think we should not accept hazardous materials because we are subject to them elsewhere. I’m not a hairdresser, but risks to their health should be eradicated. Harmful particulate should be eradicated, and aspartame too. Let’s take bullets out of the chambers handed to us in this corporate run game of life Russian Roulette.