3 ms·
the way this is worded, is that responibility is bieng downloaded onto "Children under 8", whereas I am absolutely shure that there is no toxin that effects onl
by metalman 2y ago
the way this is worded, is that responibility is bieng downloaded onto "Children under 8", whereas I am absolutely shure that there is no toxin that
effects only children
remarkable how this appears right out in the open
like it's a technical discussion involving the placement of a regulatory warning sticker.
- Symbiote 2y agoFrom the paper, they are going by body weight, and then a conservative age as a proxy: “To ensure safe population-level recommendations can be easily interpreted at the individual parental level, and given the variability across an age cohort of weight, we suggest that recommendations should be based on weight rather than age. “Alternatively, the recommended age threshold may need to be higher (eight years), to ensure the dose per weight would not be exceeded given normal population variation in weight.” This is quoted at the end of the Guardian article, which is better than the Sky one: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/12/under-eights-should-not-drink-slushies-containing-glycerol-say-doctors https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/12/under-eights...
- metalman 2y agoSorbets, ice's, sherberts, etc, have been in use for centuries, its absurd that there would be a "food" presented, and designed to attract youth, where something akin to a LD50 is bieng floated as "goooood times for the whole family"* *Some fatal conditions and limitations apply Glycerol has no function as food, it's a "cheapener"