This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B “possibly carcinogenic”, because there is no such thing as “not carcinogenic”. For reference:
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it’s not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B “possibly carcinogenic”, because there is no such thing as “not carcinogenic”. For reference:
There is also very little evidence aspartame affects blood glucose. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831325000857
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it’s not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
Very good point. We may as well have that beer instead of the occasional sugary drink. Similar carb count to tax ratio.