[jiaosdjf]

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]

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]

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

[latch]

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

[jiaosdjf]

No I'm asking what language/sentence you are referring to that says "it's safe"

[miksuko]

60 years of research have not revealed any dangerous effects in reasonable consumption of aspartame. Hence it is overwhelmingly likely to be safe.

[shlant]

> 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]

"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]

> "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?