this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
804 points (96.1% liked)

World News

31911 readers
591 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

This kind of shit makes people distrustful of science in general. Way to go, guys.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Don't worry, it's all worth it in the end because the corpos made more money! /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, if you really want to understand science then you need to become a scientist.

Just taking people's word for it is the same as treating it like a religion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It should make you distrustful of politics, lawmakers, lobbyists, and capitalism not science itself. Pure science is unbiased and systematic, by definition.

[–] RegularGoose 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Science is done by people, and people are inherently biased at all times and about all things, consciously or not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The issue here isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest.