4 ms·

I would appreciate links to articles on the subject, if you have them handy!

Alex3917 7y ago
The tl;dr is that the same guys who fabricated the evidence about Saddam Hussein having WMDs also fabricated evidence for aspartame being safe. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 7y ago
  Did Donald Rumsfeld also convince the European Union, who have their own interests and a similar sized economy, that it was safe? https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 or the “more than 90 countries worldwide” [1] that the Canadian government refers to on their own website? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes/aspartame-artificial-sweeteners.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti... There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This just isn’t one of them. [1] number includes EU and US, but that still leaves more than sixty others.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Perhaps they consulted with somebody who's an expert at lying to Europeans, such as Tony Blair. ;)
  - Pimpus 7y ago
    Most of these same countries also outlawed dmt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority. As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Authorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority. > As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical. On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.
      - donatzsky 7y ago
        If said authorities were infallible, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        Nature is full of poisons too. Sugar is one! (In the right big and/or chronic dose. Organisms have to deal with glycation damage all the time.)
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        "Not infallible" doesn't mean "always wrong". Just because FDA made some mistakes, doesn't mean you can start doing the opposite of everything they say and live a happy and healthy life. Authorities may be "in the pocket of Big Pharma", but by default, I'd still trust them much more than yours or mine non-expert opinion.
        ben_w 7y ago
        Authorities don’t have to be infallible to have a better track record than anyone else. If they did, we wouldn’t have senior software engineers, we would have the pointy head boss writing all the code; we wouldn’t have doctors, as everybody’s home remedy would be just as good; we wouldn’t have CEOs, as communism would be correct and the workers would be more effective at running their businesses than the owners ever were (hello ironic counterpoint); etc. Of course, everybody including authorities is capable of making mistakes. It is generally a bigger mistake to think you know better than they do. Not always, but generally.
    - 7y ago
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    There is a big difference between what law-makers/legislators think is safe in the context of their desire to promote the economies of their commercial partners, and what scientists consider safe in the context of human health and safety. The two cannot be conflated. Scientists can call for something to be re-considered, safety-wise, long after legislators have put their deals to bed. There are countless examples of this throughout history, where researchers, engineers, scientists have had to struggle very hard to get politicians - who have their own interests - to address the issue. Too many times, research which runs counter to economic narratives is ignored or, worse, suppressed in order that people can 'continue living their lives as consumers unhindered'. Suggesting that people bow to the authority of legislators over that of human-health scientists serves only to perpetuate the conditions which endanger us all. Remember, asbestos was once 'scientifically and legally proven to be safe' at one point. Too many times in history, what the collective thinks is safe is only so, because the collective ("everyone thinks the same") says so ..
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      asbestos was once 'scientifically and legally proven to be safe' Source?
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      The history of associating disease with asbestos exposure dates to the ancient Greeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos-related_diseases#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos-related_diseases#Hist...

The tl;dr is that the same guys who fabricated the evidence about Saddam Hussein having WMDs also fabricated evidence for aspartame being safe. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 7y ago
Did Donald Rumsfeld also convince the European Union, who have their own interests and a similar sized economy, that it was safe? https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 or the “more than 90 countries worldwide” [1] that the Canadian government refers to on their own website? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes/aspartame-artificial-sweeteners.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti... There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This just isn’t one of them. [1] number includes EU and US, but that still leaves more than sixty others.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Perhaps they consulted with somebody who's an expert at lying to Europeans, such as Tony Blair. ;)
- Pimpus 7y ago
  Most of these same countries also outlawed dmt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority. As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Authorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority. > As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical. On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.
    - donatzsky 7y ago
      If said authorities were infallible, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Nature is full of poisons too. Sugar is one! (In the right big and/or chronic dose. Organisms have to deal with glycation damage all the time.)
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        "Not infallible" doesn't mean "always wrong". Just because FDA made some mistakes, doesn't mean you can start doing the opposite of everything they say and live a happy and healthy life. Authorities may be "in the pocket of Big Pharma", but by default, I'd still trust them much more than yours or mine non-expert opinion.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        Authorities don’t have to be infallible to have a better track record than anyone else. If they did, we wouldn’t have senior software engineers, we would have the pointy head boss writing all the code; we wouldn’t have doctors, as everybody’s home remedy would be just as good; we wouldn’t have CEOs, as communism would be correct and the workers would be more effective at running their businesses than the owners ever were (hello ironic counterpoint); etc. Of course, everybody including authorities is capable of making mistakes. It is generally a bigger mistake to think you know better than they do. Not always, but generally.
  - 7y ago
- fit2rule 7y ago
  There is a big difference between what law-makers/legislators think is safe in the context of their desire to promote the economies of their commercial partners, and what scientists consider safe in the context of human health and safety. The two cannot be conflated. Scientists can call for something to be re-considered, safety-wise, long after legislators have put their deals to bed. There are countless examples of this throughout history, where researchers, engineers, scientists have had to struggle very hard to get politicians - who have their own interests - to address the issue. Too many times, research which runs counter to economic narratives is ignored or, worse, suppressed in order that people can 'continue living their lives as consumers unhindered'. Suggesting that people bow to the authority of legislators over that of human-health scientists serves only to perpetuate the conditions which endanger us all. Remember, asbestos was once 'scientifically and legally proven to be safe' at one point. Too many times in history, what the collective thinks is safe is only so, because the collective ("everyone thinks the same") says so ..
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    asbestos was once 'scientifically and legally proven to be safe' Source?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    The history of associating disease with asbestos exposure dates to the ancient Greeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos-related_diseases#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos-related_diseases#Hist...