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.
Everything has a negative health impact, literally even water does. The question is always about cumulative and spontaneous dosage. At what point does it become bad for you.
One common explanation I’ve seen for aspartame is that it makes your body think you’re drinking sugar while no sugar is being absorbed. This is then potentially harmful for those with a predisposition for diabetes.
That is a known effect, yes. And an understandable one that occurs just because of the sweet receptor response. But that has nothing to do with the effects being claimed by others about it.
It’s possible that the increased risk of diabetes snowballs into an increased risk of cancer from diabetes’ secondary conditions. Making claims about “these amino acids are harmless so the substance is harmless” disregards the possible chains of events that could actually cause more conditions.
That is something that can be researched and would apply to anything that tastes sweet, of course, if true. But that’s still not the things being claimed by people about the impacts aspartame is having on them.
Essentially, they’re making claims akin to the MSG conspiracies, with the same lack of evidence for anything. Including with placebo studies showing the people claiming these effects also claiming it when they think they’re consuming the substance, but they aren’t.