One of the most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health body, according to two sources, pitting it against the food industry and regulators.
Meh. If you ignore every cancer long enough you don’t have to worry about any of them.
We need a neutral body that is willing to treat it like binary. Does it increase the odds of cancer above a certain threshold given situations that normal users would deal with? Then yes it causes cancer. Else no. I am sick of these governing bodies using weasel words to defend their claims. Statements like this make people do averaging. Suddenly these super hypothetical situations are rated as deadily as smoking.
I think a binary system leaves no room for nuance, and therefore, no ability for consumers to make informed decisions. What about a scale instead? 1 could mean “Cancerous? Technically, but don’t worry about it unless you’re mainlining it 23 hours a day, dude.” And 10 could mean, “Seriously, make sure your will is updated.”
Meh. If you ignore every cancer long enough you don’t have to worry about any of them.
We need a neutral body that is willing to treat it like binary. Does it increase the odds of cancer above a certain threshold given situations that normal users would deal with? Then yes it causes cancer. Else no. I am sick of these governing bodies using weasel words to defend their claims. Statements like this make people do averaging. Suddenly these super hypothetical situations are rated as deadily as smoking.
I think a binary system leaves no room for nuance, and therefore, no ability for consumers to make informed decisions. What about a scale instead? 1 could mean “Cancerous? Technically, but don’t worry about it unless you’re mainlining it 23 hours a day, dude.” And 10 could mean, “Seriously, make sure your will is updated.”
Like cooking meat creates carcinogens if any of it is burned.
At some point, who the fuck cares. I have to die of something.