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.

  • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anecdotes are not “personal opinions” and they certainly aren’t valid or valuable in the context of evaluating scientific claims.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it isn’t valuable for scientific evaluation. They are valid though. Anyway, the other comment was just a claim without any supporting evidence for it but no one felt they needed to point that out.