That post seems to be missing.
load all comments
AlexRogansBeta 8 points 3 years ago

I mean.... Is anyone surprised? I'm not surprised.

path: 0 646432, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 8
livus 9 points 3 years ago

I actually am.

Everyone has been saying it is for years, but I was never able to find any hard evidence despite it being the subject of numerous studies.

I feel kind of naive now.

path: 0 646432 646455, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 7
dojan 38 points 3 years ago

That's because there hasn't really been any hard evidence. From the article itself:

It has four different levels of classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than how dangerous a substance is.

"Probably Possibly carcinogenic" is thus the least supported one one can make a ruling with.

Then it all depends on the studies themselves too. Like one study on sunscreens found that oxybenzone caused endocrine disruptions in mice; when force-fed unrealistic amounts of it. Like what does that even tell us? Don't compulsively eat sunscreen, you could get sick?

The chemical was prohibited nonetheless, because generally a "better safe than sorry" approach is taken. These corporations don't want to face massive class-action lawsuits, so you can expect aspartame to be phased out.

path: 0 646432 646455 646759, hotness: undefined, score: 38, children: 6

thanks for using Leebra!

go to feed...