834
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

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
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago

It's just as valid, if not maybe a little more, than the guy claiming it is the reason. People are allowed to discuss their personal opinions and they should need to include that it's only a sample size of one and not independently verified. No one should be stupid enough to think they're claiming otherwise and need to say it out loud that they don't trust it.

[-] RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Anecdotes are not "personal opinions" and they certainly aren't valid or valuable in the context of evaluating scientific claims.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

No, it isn't valuable for scientific evaluation. They are valid though. Anyway, the other comment was just a claim without any supporting evidence for it but no one felt they needed to point that out.

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

World News

32328 readers
477 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS