- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
What I don’t get is why it took them decades to figure this out. Why have they been giving us sugar substitutes without understanding what they have been doing to us? Why were these approved for use in the first place?
Copied from another posting of this article:
The headline (and the article for that matter) are very sensationalist and I don’t think they’ve presented this in a balanced way. They are discussing how sorbitol behaves in zebrafish with limited data presented on human biochemistry, and they discuss it in a vacuum without quantifying the amount of sorbitol it takes to cause a problem. Yes, any substance in excess can be harmful, but the amount of sorbitol in food compared to the amount of high fructose corn syrup makes it the substantially lesser evil. The artificial sweeteners are vastly more potent than actual sugar, so you don’t need very much of it to get the same amount of sweetness. High fructose corn syrup is used in massive amounts in food and is much worse for you on the scale that either substance would be consumed.
The scientific paper grift chain: get private funding from a company to publish a paper, use wild methodology, have the shit denounced and condemned by mainstream academia but not before every fucking news outlet in the world puts out a headline “BREAKING: SCIENTIFIC PAPER LINKS EATING SALAD TO BRAIN-EXPLODING DISEASE”
Never mind that to get this evidence they had to inject a marmot with enough salad dressing directly into its skull to make it explode thousand-island grey matter across its cage.
There’s a whole cycle of perverse incentives with University Press.
The underlying research is necessary and valuable but the marketing arm of universities blow everything out of proportion.