834
Revealed: WHO aspartame safety panel linked to alleged Coca-Cola front group (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
208 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
[-] charliespider@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I don't understand how people are so surprised to discover that experts in a particular field or industry...

GASP!

Have worked or continue to work in said field or industry!

Is it really a surprise that an expert in the subject of aspartame works or has worked for one of the biggest users of aspartame? You think aspartame experts are going to work for car companies?

Like if you wanted to find an expert on say... petroleum, it shouldn't be a surprise that they have worked for an oil company. That said, any obvious conflicts of interest should be noted in any reports so that others are aware, but someone's expertise shouldn't be immediately discounted.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

I don't think the shock is that they work in the industry as much as it opens up a LOT of possibilities for a conflict of interest.

When you're taking ANY measurement ever, conflicts of interest are bad. And what's at stake here is the health and safety of anyone who eats aspartame, which is a lot.

[-] charliespider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Point taken and why I think any conflicts just need to be noted and weighed with the rest of the facts, as opposed to completely discarding someone's expertise.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think the expertise would get discarded so much as their conclusions. Again the conclusion is that the levels we are ingesting are safe. I don't want to trust anyone who could profit from the sale of the product they are judging the safety of.

In the 1940s tobacco companies said cigarettes were safe, in the 1950s and 60s we took thalidomide because it was marked as safe, in the 1970s oil companies said petroleum emissions weren't of any concern.

There is a pattern here and it's very, very simple

Profits>everything

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

World News

32315 readers
910 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml