• Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Where are you getting that they’re potentially worse? They may have some adverse effects but they seem minor compared to sugar. For aspartame there seems to be some studies possibly linking it with cancer, but those are very limited and even after those studies came out the WHO reaffirmed it’s safety at normal levels. Meanwhile actual sugar has been proven to cause diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc. Sucralose doesn’t seem to show any adverse effects at normal doses.

    A lot of the controversy on artificial sweeteners comes from the sugar lobby combined with moral panics and conspiracies on using “chemicals” in foods.

    • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I did say “controversially” and “potentially” :)

      I think it was the WHO who mentioned it last year, but it keeps cropping up each year from various university studies - of course I’ll have only ever read the news reports of those studies.

      I absolutely agree though, I’d be highly suspicious of sugar company (or high-fructose-syrup) lobbying.

      Personally my preference is for “things to just be less sweet” (like why does some bread or soup have sugar in now?!?), though I suspect it’s a bit of a minority opinion :)

    • guy_threepwood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I refuse to have anything with Stevia in it as it gives me the shits. And Aspartame tastes weird.

      I do have less sugar as a result, though!

      • vaionko@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        They advise not to use them for weight control. That’s a bit different than what you’re implying.