this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15897 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
KiaKaha@hexbear.net
wantonviolins@hexbear.net
itsPina@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
blashork@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net
0
Verge does PR for carcinogenic aspartame. (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by Evilphd666@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's not a "risk" it's a "hazard assement".

It's not a food safety agency it's just the World Health Organization's cancer research arm.

This certainly doesn't stir up mistrust. joker-troll

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] betelgeuse@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You know when a food additive is bad when they start removing it voluntarily. A lot of sodas switched to sucralose years ago. Companies don't completely change their formula for fun. And I don't think consumer pressure drove them to do it either. At some point they found out that the shit was bad and they could be sued if they kept using it. So they got ahead of it. They don't want to be tobacco'd.

Same thing with all the uncured luncheon meat that started years go. All those extra curing additives causes cancer too.

Sucralose will probably have its day too. I noticed a huge spike in stevia and monk fruit being pushed ahead of sucralose. And splenda dove deep into those alternate sweetners. They could probably drop sucralose and be fine.

[–] thisonethatone@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Ugh, I hate sucralose. That stuff gave me a gnarly allergic reaction/inflammation and I got sent to the hospital twice because of it (I didn't know what was causing it so oops, poisoned myself twice)

[–] came_apart_at_Kmart@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

i remember reading some story about some guy with a snacky sweet tooth buying a big pack of sugar free gummy bears to eat on a plane ride. they were sweetened with sorbitol. anyway, the guy absentmindedly eats a shitload of them and then gets outrageous bubble gut, before absolutely wrecking the airplane toilet midflight. like apparently it was loud as hell and unrelenting.

he discovered later sorbitol, while a sweetener, is also used as a laxative.

[–] mittens@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

this was featured in dr house, one of the clinic patients had persistent diarrhea and house was like "how much gum are you chewing per day lmao"

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

idk, If I was a betting man, I'd put money on the new stuff being cheaper before I'd believe they're concerned about their consumers or measly lawsuits.

[–] john_browns_beard@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Some new sweeteners are orders of magnitude (like 1000x or more) sweeter than aspartame, and therefore much cheaper because a lot less is needed. I'm a chemist in the flavors industry.

[–] DoghouseCharlie@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

John Brown, will stevia kill me or can I continue drinking my Donald Duck orange cream soda?

[–] Hexbear2@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You should be avoiding aspartame anyways, it's a neural exciter in the brain, acts as a nuero transmitter that flips stuff on. It's terrible for my tinnitus, causing an immediate increase upon consumption, which is a disorder caused by already overcited nuerons.

I stick to sucralose or stevia for soda, or for a sweetener, L-Glycine amino acid.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Not liking something that is marketed as safe and good to drink getting called actually not safe and not good to drink is "freaking out." the-more-you-know

Disclaimer: If the data says aspartame is safe compared to a lot of things also considered safe, that's worth consideration. But calling concern "freaking out" is the kind of PR shit that Monsanto pushed to make RoundUp not only acceptable but celebrated on reddit-logo

[–] Esoteir@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

did you even read the article, they're correct

there is 100% a difference between hazards and risks, aspartame is a hazard in that if you drink multiple twelve packs of diet soda a day it can give you cancer, it is not a risk in that the average person will not be drinking multiple twelve packs of soda in a single day. hence why it's important to label it as a hazard (guys don't drink 17+ diet coke cans a day), but not important for it to be labeled as a risk (general public should not drink this at all) without additional research that puts it in the risk category

which is why food regulatory bodies including the one in China allows aspartame in food products

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Well now you're on to "risk management" or managing a hazard .

Taking it in on itself is not a 1:1 cancer, but over time and with individual known and unknown factors will increase your risk to cancer and neurological issues. I just know if I have more than 1 serving it gives me migraines which is inconsistant with industry you need to bath in it every day all day for it to negatively effect you.

I would trust the WHO over China's food safety.

Edit: Hexbear - now powered by Monsanto.

[–] StewartCopelandsDad@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I just know if I have more than 1 serving it gives me migraines

Might want to blind test this if you haven't already. See: MSG panic

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have. Over years. The factor is always aspartame. I have no other explanation. Within an hour , not 24 or 48 like some studies say, I'll get headaches and I've learned to just look out for it and avoid it. I got no other food allergies or sensitivities. I'm not a womam going through hormonal changes or being drunk or have a history of migranes or headaches as some studies suggest. It doesn't matter the weather, the food, any other factor. It's aspartame.

[–] StewartCopelandsDad@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Blind tests specifically? Take, e.g., soda and diet soda, decant into identical containers with hidden labels, drink one, and log any effects before you check what it was. The brain is powerful. Some people experience real headaches because they think that WiFi or other RF gives them headaches. But they won't get a headache from radio waves they don't know about.

I don't intend this in a mean way. If you do find out that it's something else you could get relief from said migraines. Like the MSG folks who are probably just not drinking enough water when they go out to dinner, or are nervous about Asians or something. I once took placebo and a low dose of MDMA in a blind study and got them backwards. I was embarrassed for some reason but our brains really do construct much of what we perceive as raw sensory input.

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

I don't have these headaches unless it's aspartame and I really had no real opinion on the whole thing until after years of repeated "why am I getting headaches" shortly after and I revaluate what I've had and it's always triggered around aspartame. It isn't psychosomatic. I don't have a problem with regular migranes or headaches. When I do get headaches I can usually attribute them to dehydration, or stress, or some other obvious issue.

I can have suculouse with no problem. Stevia no problem. Monk fruit no problem with the added bonus of having more lucid dreams. High fructose corn syrup but I feel a bit bloated after so I try to stay away from that - but no headaches. It's always aspartame if I have more than 1 serving. So there's something there.

Why am I being gaslighted so damned hard on this forum?

[–] RION@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

which is why food regulatory bodies including the one in China allows aspartame in food products

You found the cheat code to make hexbear users think something is okay! some-controversy

But yeah this article is not dunk worthy. It rightly explains the difference and use cases of different health org classifications

[–] Esoteir@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

the cheat code

yea you caught me