like, it's caffeine and water and brown, who cares. i drink diet soda so it's no calories, no sugar. versus the stereotype starbucks order, why is soda so demonized

the whole sort of basically woo stuff about oh there's antioxidants there which give you a 3% lower risk of skin cancer after the age of 65 like come on that doesn't count

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't mention any regulatory bodies specifically, cause health should be generally referenced from as many sources as possible - but all those numbers are based on theoretical doses on rats, your coefficient of safety is gonna be that close to the theoretical??

Especially when there's probably billions in companies like coke and Pepsi on the line, yet were still trending in the direction of stricter classification - you're gonna risk your entire health on there being no bias???

[–] Mindlight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You use a (heavily questioned) statement of an organization as a base for your claims when the organization explicitly doesn't support your conclusion. It's a fact that WHO still claims there is no dangers consuming the recommended daily amount.

The method used on rats to estimate the dangers is the method used when estimating dangers every other substances. So the argument is valid as long as you claim that every other substance cause cancer.

Then you end up nibbling on edges of the classic "the great aspartame conspiracy" but what you totally miss that "big sugar" is even more powerfull...

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah I was lying to sound smart they almost for sure do human trials, but you're totally lying too is the funniest part

[–] Mindlight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Oh... More unsubstantiated claims from you... Well .. have a nice Friday evening.