So basically there's no scientific consensus either way, there's no tradition of using it and there are extreme commercial incentives for harm so it's a no from me

▲

latch 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure how you get to that conclusion from the article when it ends with the conclusion from 5 health agencies that it's safe (and then more references from the scientific community that it's safe).

▲

jiaosdjf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What in your view is the single strongest scientific conclusion supporting your statement that "it's safe"?

▲

latch an hour ago | parent [-]

Are you moving the goal post? I generally trust health agencies, more so when they all agree.

	▲	jiaosdjf 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No I'm asking what language/sentence you are referring to that says "it's safe"

▲

shlant 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> So basically there's no scientific consensus either way

"The current science says that the health impact of aspartame is essentially zero. Every credible body that has studied this question has reached the same conclusion."

Did you even read the article?

▲

jiaosdjf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"While informative, this does not prove aspartame is safe"

There is no such thing as "it's just a normal chemical". Sugar is "just a normal chemical" that doesn't mean refining it and injecting it into products with a commercial incentive to habit form hasn't helped create a health crisis

	▲	shlant an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> "While informative, this does not prove aspartame is safe" You just cherry-picked this from where they are only talking about the chemicals it breaks down into which yes, does not alone prove it's safe. But then it (right after in the section titled "The scientific consensus") goes on to list the science from most major health organizations and concludes with the quote I shared. Did you just ignore all the evidence presented because it doesn't fir your confirmation bias?