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.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The WHO isn’t really a combined organization. It’s a diffuse set of disparate groups, panels, and NGOs. So they don’t really have control over what any particular branch is doing.

    IARC has been arguing that it’s been doing its job under its defined parameters and I suppose they are. The problem is that, under their defined parameters, practically every single thing they investigate will be labeled as carcinogenic because everything is carcinogenic at a high enough dosage. Including being alive in the first place.

    So I suppose the issue is more the media putting any stock or importance into IARC’s announcements, when they aren’t really saying anything meaningful about human health.