A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I am curious whether this will actually impact what is considered safe to consume on a daily basis.
Again, many things are unhealthy and carcinogenic in large quantities. The infamos study showed that Aspartame was causing cancer in mice but the amounts they were given would be like humans eating bags of it every day.
I'm so glad I was finally able to give up soda, not because of health reasons but I just started disliking carbonated beverages. With findings such as the amount of sugar they contain as well as the aspartame study I'm probably never looking back.
I'm not sure because I think more studies need to be done.
What I do know is I never liked diet coke or anything with artificial sweeteners. Never drank them. But when I got cancer I craved it. During chemo it was the only thing I could drink without issue. So there's that.
For context, this is the same designation that bacon currently has, amongst a whole bunch of other things we all eat.
Yeah, but bacon is probably like the unhealthiest meat you can eat. Its packed with sodium nitrites to retain its pink hue and is absolutely off the charts for actual sodium content as well as saturated fat, which makes up nearly 70% of its calories. If you were eating a 1kg pack of bacon the way I see people chugging a daily liter o cola, it would be incredibly unhealthy.
Causes it, or possibly causes it? Seems like they should get their ducks in a row and find out conclusively?
There is no "conclusively".
What do you mean by "causes cancer"? Do you mean "any quantity at all causes immediate cancer in all people"? Because nothing does. Do you mean "some quantity over any time period causes cancer in some people?" Because almost everything does (just ask California).
The latter is probably closer to what they mean. But we don't consume gallons of aspartame daily for 50 years.
So the real question is "what is the risk when consumed in realistic quantities?" And it turns out there is almost no risk.
Yeah, that's my point. It's half-baked. "It possibly causes cancer" tells me that they don't know, and haven't figured it out. The people who figured it out with saccharine actually did science and figured out how much for how long, holding everything else constant, shows a statistically significant increase in rates of cancer in the subjects.
So we get an announcement that they're going to make an announcement that they have a hunch, and that's just so totally stupid and senseless. They're just throwing rocks at ducks on the pond to rile them up, for some reason. Which probably has something to do with somebody at the WHO's personal convictions or stock portfolio, otherwise there's no point.
I feel similarly about GMO labelling laws that just require that its presence in foods be disclosed, but not an explanation of why it's significant. A crop that's been altered to be able to grow in roundup and may contain unhealthy levels of it is a hell of a lot different than a crop that's been altered to contain more vitamins, but all we get is a label that for all practical purposes just alarms people with no capacity for critical thought into thinking it's poisonous.
IDK why people are so determined to consume that shit.
My wife introduced me to Diet Coke, I had no interest in it before. What followed is years of mild consumption, mostly with fast food. It just became the taste I prefer. I'm drinking my last right now, with a final fast food burger. I knew it was garbage, but I needed to be reminded that it was garbage.
Because I like cold carbonated drinks, I like the taste of cola, but I don't like the thick, sugary, syrupy taste of actual Coke?
Surely you realize it's not because we have "aspartame cravings" or that we somehow think it's healthier (there's nothing healthy about Coke in any form anyway)...
I need my caffeine, but loathe the taste of coffee. So I drink tons of coke. If I drank the sugar variation, my size would be measured in football field units. With diet, I at least am not morbidly obese.
Hasn’t it already been proven to facilitate the development of Alzheimer? Honest question - I’m a layman in medicine and just worried about my dad chugging tons of diet products full of aspartame, thinking it’s the healthy choice (as opposed to non-diet lemonade for instance).
I don't know enough to disqualify the studies they cite, but I guess at least these folks seem to be the opposite of industry shills? There is an Alzheimer's section. US Right to Know: Aspartame
The Alzheimer's Association (safely covering their asses) defers to the FDA's approval but does note concerns have been raised. it's myth 5 here