World News

32291 readers

1118 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

[email protected]

834

Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

212 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IARC has been long since discredited at this point. You want to talk corruption, their panel to determine carcinogenicity was found to have been using a lawyer as the primary consultant who was working with various anti-science groups and he has been actively pushing to get certain things labeled as carcinogenic, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.

A separate WHO group, JECFA, which is actually about determining human health and safety in relation to specific chemicals (which is not IARC's job) has repeatedly produced opposing results to IARC. And that includes on their recent claims about aspartame.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, so the WHO are using dubious sources?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The WHO isn't really a combined organization. It's a diffuse set of disparate groups, panels, and NGOs. So they don't really have control over what any particular branch is doing.

IARC has been arguing that it's been doing its job under its defined parameters and I suppose they are. The problem is that, under their defined parameters, practically every single thing they investigate will be labeled as carcinogenic because everything is carcinogenic at a high enough dosage. Including being alive in the first place.

So I suppose the issue is more the media putting any stock or importance into IARC's announcements, when they aren't really saying anything meaningful about human health.