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.
Agree, though just because we currently have not been able to establish that something is harmful, we should still be open to reevaluating that assumption given new evidence.
Consider PFAS, which we for a long time thought was completely inert and harmless, at least after production. Only recently we’ve discovered or perhaps rather accepted that it has adverse effects on human health.
Another example is freon. A completely awesome product, until we found that it caused the ozone hole and we had to ban it.
I agree that we should always be open to new evidence, but in this case, the study parameters and methods do not appear to be any different and it is highly unlikely that further study with the same techniques will yield novel results.
Agree, though just because we currently have not been able to establish that something is harmful, we should still be open to reevaluating that assumption given new evidence.
Consider PFAS, which we for a long time thought was completely inert and harmless, at least after production. Only recently we’ve discovered or perhaps rather accepted that it has adverse effects on human health.
Another example is freon. A completely awesome product, until we found that it caused the ozone hole and we had to ban it.
I agree that we should always be open to new evidence, but in this case, the study parameters and methods do not appear to be any different and it is highly unlikely that further study with the same techniques will yield novel results.