If they’re really going to tax sugar-free drinks (and not even use the money for healthcare) then it’s obviously going to be another tax on being poor, like the increase of the value added tax that they are also planning.
Just what we asked for. Tax increases that are going to do nothing to the overly rich and instead hurt regular people. And then they wonder why people turn to political extremism.
They always fumble stuff like this on purpose. A bag of nuts has the worst nutri score ever, a deep frozen pizza is a B.
Lobbyists the answer is lobbyists. The government is very corrupt here, especially the current one.
Nutri scores compare with similar products in a category.
Nuts and pizza are in different categories, and maybe that specific pizza was better than the rest.
It is not about “sugar-free”. It is about added artifical sweeteners. Not that one thinks they would add sugar tax to e.g. sparkling water…
why is that rational but 100% pure milk is ok?
the milk that we’re sold is for fucking cows. how much more ‘unnatural’ can you get? would you go cuddle a cow and drink from its tit?
i don’t even buy any of the dangers of artificial sweeteners. can you even create a study where someone is indulging in aspartame and also not eating/drinking one of the other 34983048304834 chemicals we’re taking in on a daily basis?
even if it is bad on some level, fruit juice is worse strictly going by sugar/calorie content unless it’s squeezed straight from the fruit, which nobody is doing, other than weirdos.
would you go cuddle a cow and drink from its tit?
Is that really something you want these people to answer?
Some of the more stupid Americans are actually proud of drinking raw milk. A rather dangerous hobby, especially with the state of medical insurance in the US.
I would definitely not drink milk directly from a cow. That is something I leave to conservative idiots in the US.
As for artificial sweeteners, there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies on the dangers, and some of those chemical have already been taken off the market. Biological / pharmaceutical research has mastered to single out threats from single components long ago, so if they come to the conclusion that aspartame or others are bad, they have good reason to believe it actually was that components fault.
Don’t. It’s shit. In the UK, every drink became low sugar as they swapped sugar for aspartame and asulfate k. Only coca-cola stayed the same and you pay the tax. I mostly drink apple or orange juice now, but I reserve the right to want to drink shitty drinks when I buy a takeaway. Companies didn’t give that choice unfortunately.
Artificial sugars taste like shit and there is some evidence that despite zero calories, they can lead to higher blood sugar level.
Oh, and aspartame could be carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
It’s like when UK pushed folk to diesel to cut CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases got worse.
Oh, and aspartame could be carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
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.
is it weird that I prefer sugar free drinks
The normal versions taste far too sweet and they mess up my stomach
The sugar free versions are more reasonable (imo) and they don’t mess up my stomach
It’s not weird if that’s what you like. It makes me feel ill and triggers the gag reflex.
I wonder if my point is allowed, the fast food industries heavy investment in partial “science” and astroturfing has been very successful.
What do you mean by “allowed”?
The hive view here is the rather not so nuanced sugar = bad, artificial sweeteners = great". Reminds me why I don’t miss reddit. It was the same in the pro-nuclear stance which had been astroturfed to the point that “nuclear > wind and solar”. Weirdly surreal and disturbing.
I get surprised when anticapitalists start doing the work of corporations.
Yeah once you get used to the taste of the artificial sweetner its the superior version IMO. There’s no corn syrup film left on your teeth either
If you have a film left then something is weird about the drinks you were drinking
Yeah its the fucking corn syrup. That shit is awful
That’s a thing that happens with corn syrup? They use actual sugar for drinks here so i didn’t know
No
Not at all,
Love my sugar free drinks, they taste better than sugared drinks
My kid spilled sugar free coke in my hair on a trip, and unlike if it was regular coke, it wasn’t an issue.
I mostly drink apple or orange juice now
I’m pretty sure this is the intended purpose of the law.
As an adult, I can smoke, drink, eat all sorts of shit, but I cannot have a sugary drink unless it’s coke because shops stopped selling them. The law was intended to discourage, not prohibit. I actually drink more coke too now as it’s only soft drink I can buy that doesn’t taste like chemicals.
For reference, kids in schools can drink shit filled with artificial sweeteners. They can get chocolate with their lunch and trust me, they treat themselves to chocolate and a Prime on their way home.
This law didn’t protect health, just move folk to substitutes that aren’t necessary better for them. States shouldn’t be preventing consenting adults making decisions with their own health.
Hell, the food is still largely unregulated with ridiculous levels of sodium which is ridiculous for heart disease.
Apple juice isn’t really healthier than soft drinks, especially sugar-wise.
After the first one. One is likely good for you, but more and it’s a bit like drinking coke. Pulp based smoothies are more healthy through.
Fruit juice is the sugar of the fruits without the fibers. So not much different than a soda sugar wise.
No. Juice is not good for you. And smoothies are still worse than fresh fruit. And fruit is still worse than vegetables.
“A plausible explanation as to why fruit juices may lead to different health effects from those of sugar-sweetened beverages is that fruit juices are a source of various bioactive compounds, such as vitamins (vitamin C, folate, etc.), minerals (mostly potassium), and antioxidants [73], while sugar-sweetened beverages generally have none. Antioxidants were shown to decrease oxidative stress [91], which plays an important role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, including atherosclerosis, diabetes, and dyslipidemia [92].”
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/5/1006
Please don’t spout opinions not based in fact.
There is more to fruit juice than just sugar.
Please don’t post excerpts from studies without reading the conclusion. This study doesn’t conclude what you want it to. The sentece about antioxidants for example is about antioxidants in general and not about whether their consumption in fruit juices has health benefits. The study basically says there’s a lack of data to assess the situation.
Here, look at this more recent study that compared different kinds of fruit juices.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453024001915
It concludes that fruit juices have less health risks the more they resemble fresh fruit.
But juice resembles fruit more than sweetened drinks… So clearly better then.
> Invents Spezi, the best beverage there is
> Invents Shorle, the best beverage type there is
> Taxes the shit out of them
I see what you did hereSo if I sell water with the tag sugar free will it get taxed?
If it doesn’t contain sweeteners, then no
It’s sugar free.
But that’s not specifically when the tax is applied
I’m more often drinking water, only coffee with stevia for up to 4 times a day, and enjoy a little soda or fruit juice once in a while as I treat those the same way as a shot of whisky. Just all in moderation.
100% fruit juices would remain exempt
Why?? Shit’s sugar. You’re not getting most of the nutritional benefit from juice, all the fiber has been removed.
Someone paid someone else a million and now juice with 50 percent sugar is not included in this.
Stevia coke is, how weird …
My guess is because it’s unsweetened, and that the tax applies to drinks with added sugar or sweetener.
‘We should reduce sugar and sweetener consumption, let’s not tax this drink that’s almost pure sugar because it’s natural’ is asinine. Apple juice has virtually identical sugar content to a soda.
They’re not the same types of sugar. Your body uses glucose differently than fructose.
They are both very high in fructose. What is your point? I genuinly don’t get it.
What is the difference? Both harmful same way, glucose spikes, leads to obesity
They are not. Monosaccharides are absorbed differently and used differently than disaccharides.
Maybe to some extent? I don’t think the superiority of one monosaccharide over the other has been clearly established. There are differences, but the health impact of them are not clear. Also, “glucose vs fructose” is
-
not super-relevant to the matter of comparing juice with soda. At least here in the Nordics, most sodas seem to be sweetened with sugar, a.k.a. sucrose (a.k.a. fructose+glucose, see below), and maybe a splash of juice. (Based on a survey of my favorites, though I mostly drink the Zero-versions)
-
a bit of a false choice (see below).
Fructose often co-occurs with glucose
(Source: Wikipedia article on Fructose)
- Fructose co-exists with glucose, in sucrose …
Fructose, or fruit sugar, is a common monosaccharide, i.e. a simple sugar. It is classified as a reducing hexose, more specifically a ketonic simple sugar found in many plants, where it is often bonded to glucose to form the disaccharide sucrose.
- … and in fruit.
Table: “Sugar content of selected common plant foods”. Note that many of the fruits’ sugar content is dominated by a combination of sucrose and free fructose. Only plum breaks this trend, containing mostly glucose instead (still 47% sucrose and fructose).
- Also: Fructose mostly ends up as glucose
The liver converts most fructose and galactose into glucose for distribution in the bloodstream or deposition into glycogen.
“Potential health effects”
- A lot of the discussion in this part of the article is just about overconsumption of dietary sugars (including glucose and sucrose) in general, which would indicate to me that the differences between them aren’t all that significant. However:
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stated in 2011 that fructose may be preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels,[58] while also noting the potential downside that “high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance, and increased visceral adiposity”.[58][59] The UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2015 disputed the claims of fructose causing metabolic disorders, stating that “there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.”[60]
- “Compared to sucrose”
Fructose was found to increase triglycerides in type-2 but not type-1 diabetes, and moderate use of it has previously been considered acceptable as a sweetener for diabetics,[61] possibly because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells.[62] For a 50 gram reference amount, fructose has a glycemic index of 23, compared with 100 for glucose and 60 for sucrose.[63] Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, allowing diabetics to use less of it per serving.
-
The sugar in soda contains fructose (it is in fact 50% fructose). Soda with HFCS isn’t actually that much higher in fructose than plain sugar soda, ironically; the ‘high’ just means ‘higher than white sugar’.
The “high” means greater than 55% fructose. HFCS has to be at minimum HFCS-55 according to the FDA. Many sodas mix HFCS-55 with HFCS-90 to increase the concentration. And I never said that soda doesn’t have fructose? Don’t know where you got that.
Isn’t it fructose, or has it changed during the “jucification” process? I mean fructose is sugar, but way less bad than refined sugars.
Why not tax the actual apples then?
Because apples aren’t apple juice, metabolically or nutritionally. The fiber slows down how fast you absorb the sugar and it’s good for your gut.
Don’t get me wrong, they probs should tax it but wouldn’t that just push people to make their own juice instead and probs not change much?
I doubt it, making juice is annoying and you have a lot of apple mush to deal with.
Eh fair enough.
Yes that’s why I wouldn’t tax them extra, however you seem to be advocating for a tax on anything with sugar. So why the change? You say yourself they’ve still sugar in it so why not tax them according to your logic?
To put another way, if the presence of sugar isn’t enough to justify the tax on its own, as long as the form is somrwhat different, then why not accept the difference between added sugar and no added sugar? That’s just as meaningful a difference.
I have no idea what you’re trying to advocate for here, but a dietitian isn’t going to tell you that apple juice and an apple are the same, because they’re not; a single serving of apple juice isn’t even made from a single apple. Fruit is healthy to eat, juice is not a health drink. If you’re taxing for health it makes sense to tax the unhealthy things and not the healthy ones.
I’m not really advocating for anything other than pointing out that your argument is inconsistent. Is it about the sugar or not? If not then you’ve already accepted that there are different definitions and clearly juice is a different definition than a soft drink. Your arbitrarily deciding what’s okay and not okay from what I can see of your argument. Adding healthy is even worse. That’s an extremely subjective argument.
What about grapes? They’re extremely high in sugar and relatively low in fiber. Is that okay? Do you see what I’m saying? There’s no consistency to go on here.
I motion we tax Catoblepas for being too starchy.
That’s not true, the tax apply to unsweetened milk alternatives.
This is probably the most bizzare part
Because like all laws, corruption came into the process to make it miss the goal entirely.
Taxing almost all sugary drinks including artificial sweetners but not 100% juice is not “missing the goal entirely”. That’s still hitting the unhealthiest and most marketed beverages.
There is no evidence that sugar substitutes are unhealthy and in fact have proven over and over again to increase weight loss compared to full sugar or telling people to “just drink more water”.
I’d agree if this targeted products with added sugar and left the artificial sweetners out of it. Fruit juice is also sold in high volumes, especially to families and people beyond their prime age. They might be less marketed, but I would argue they’re not less unhealthy than soda with artificial sweetners. They might not miss the figurative goal entirely, but they sure are missing their literal goal if they are doing this to limit peoples consumption of unhealthy drinks.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless of its intentions.
because they aren’t purtity testing their legislation and added sugar and added artificial sweeteners is their current target, it’s a start ffs
Not all sugar is the same. I’ve read that natural fruit sugar is still way healthier than industrially refined sugar. Also fruit juice usually contains vitamins, electrolytes and fiber. So from a health perspective it makes sense to me to exempt 100℅ fruit juices. The alternative would be to only allow juice mixed with water or something else.
Jesus, the Kennedy-fication of public health is real.
Well, you read wrong. Fructose is a very short chain sugar and is absorbed into the bloodstream a lot faster than “regular” sugar, making it more unhealthy.
But it’s much more sweet tasting so you need less of it. Don’t know if it actually balances out though.
“regular sugar” is 50% fructose.
Read where?
I’ll just link to another comment I made here: https://feddit.nu/post/22364165/21693381
I read in a magazine a few years ago, so I can’t point you to that exact source. But yeah, it’s surely more complicated than that
A company (Compal) in my country (Portugal) that has been making whole fruit juice since the 70’s. If they made it any thicker, you could eat it with a fork.
Spain and France also have off-brand manufacturers of this type of fruit drink. Germany could learn something
You can’t expect logic from a conservative government, silly.
The problem is processed sugar being the cheapest calories per weight you can find so adding sugar to drinks is hyper cheap while getting people (especially kids) addicted and sick. 100% fruit juices arent the problem.
No, the problem is that people have simply demonized soda. HFCS in particular. It’s not about sugar, it never has been. An exception for fruit juice makes this obvious. It’s the “naturalistic fallacy” in action.
How does an exception for fruit juice (containing natural sugar and relatively expensive) make it obvious that its not about added sugar and cheap drinks?
Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar. Notice how I didn’t add any words to the front? Those words don’t change how (un)healthy sugar is. The law clearly isn’t about health; as it is portrayed.
Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well. So, might as well use actual sugar if you are paying the tax either way!
Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar.
This shows how little you know about the subject yet you keep arguing as if you had facts. Sugar is a category of compounds consisting mainly of saccharids (which again, is a category of compounds). There are literally thousands of “sugars” which vary wildly in their effects on the human body. Also, other stuff you ingest/digest at the same time influences those as well…
Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well.
Nope. Klingbeil revoked that immediately afterwards.
This shows how little you know about the subject yet you keep arguing as if you had facts. Sugar is a category of compounds consisting mainly of saccharids (which again, is a category of compounds). There are literally thousands of “sugars” which vary wildly in their effects on the human body. Also, other stuff you ingest/digest at the same time influences those as well…
Yeah - but that’s not what this is about is it? It’s “natural good-for-you sugar” vs. “evil corporate refined high-fructose corn syrup”. The naturalistic fallacy laid bare.
Not as far as Im concerned. This is “corporations add dirt cheap sugar to drinks making people addicted to poison for cents per liter” vs. “there simply is sugar in a pressed fruit”. And does it really matter what the motivation is as long as the desired result is the same? Taxing fruit juices just wouldnt make any sense. Theyre not the problem.
Fructose is worse than sugar
Sugar is literally 50% fructose.
The comments here are insane
Not sure why you are getting downvoted, it’s established science that fructose is worse than glucose. People freak out at high fructose corn syrup, but when it’s “natural” juices it’s completely fine I guess
Because “standard sugar” is 50% fructose. Sucrose is half glucose and fructose. High fructose corn syrup is 42-55% fructose with the remainder being glucose.
Huh? Those natural juices are glucose. They have some fructose still, but it’s nothing like sweetened drinks.
At least in the case of apples, cultivated fruits are mostly sucrose and fructose: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814614013995
Sucrose is itself 50% fructose.
Sure. Maybe I’m just in a weird group of people, but I don’t know anyone that considers Apple juice to be fruit juice though. At least from a perspective of “would you like some juice”. No one is ever talking about apple juice because it’s long been just sugar water in America. There’s only like two good brands that make it anymore. When the people I know talk about juice it’s orange, pineapple, mango, etc. almost always pulpy juices.
Another thing on the list of don’t buy in America :(
Okay, but this is about Germany, and apple juice is the most popular juice in Germany. And apple flavored sugar water is not allowed to be labeled as Apple juice here
You’re in a weird group or a weird country then, I drink apple juice quite often, even have made it myself when there’s been a plentiful year. And it’s still pulpy.
If you’re getting pulpy apple juice then yes, you are not in my country. I’m in the U.S. I’ve never even heard of pulpy apple juice.
The minister of finance clarified that the tax will not apply to sugar free drinks
If you read it, the tax will still apply to drinks with artificial sweetener:
“Gestern war ein Papier aus Klingbeils Ministerium bekannt geworden, demzufolge die geplante Abgabe mehr Produkte betreffen könnte als ursprünglich angenommen. In dem Papier des Finanzministeriums sind zum Beispiel auch Säfte, Milchersatzprodukte wie Hafer- und Mandelmilch und alkoholfreie Biermixgetränke genannt, außerdem Getränke, die lediglich Süßungsmittel enthalten.”
O lol that’s fairly recent tho. Yesterday they were all saying: hurr durr the drinking of sweet tasting things should be curbed and I almost punched the narrator via TCP/IP
I would definitely support it if somebody wants to tax stevia.
What’s wrong with stevia?
Nothing other than the aftertaste.
I’m used to it. Better than actual sugar which causes some weird itching sensation for a while.
As someone who drank stevia soda for an extended time, the brain eventually adapts to it, and stevia starts tasting like normal sugar. This adaption, however, is easy to lose if you switch back to a different sweetener for a few weeks.
Funny Thing ist the Aftertaste comes from the Processing that ist mandated by law and has been lobbied in by big sugar
Its fucking disgusting tasting.
The UK has had this for a while. I will be honest in that I still miss the taste of full sugar drinks, that’s definitely a downgrade, however after so many years of having these other drinks available I’ve lately found full sugar to be just… Too much.
Some artificial sugars do a number on my gut though. Been drinking more healthier things as a result, though overall I suppose the sugar tax has had a positive effect?
Some artificial sugars do a number on my gut though
Do not eat any substantial amounts of candy containing xylitol. Stuff is a laxative, and lots of sugar-free candy and gum uses it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol
Adverse effects
Humans
When ingested at high doses, xylitol and other polyols may cause gastrointestinal discomfort, including flatulence, diarrhea, and irritable bowel syndrome (see Metabolism above); some people experience the adverse effects at lower doses.[21][36] Xylitol has a lower laxation threshold than some sugar alcohols but is more easily tolerated than mannitol and sorbitol.[37]
My wife is ADHD and cannot stop herself from chewing through an entire box of gum if she buys one, then spends the evening moaning in pain on the toilet. 😬
Its also poisonous to pets, just fyi
There’s that LA Beast video on YouTube where he goes through a large bag of sugar free haribo bears and develops an excellent relationship with his toilet. After reading hilarious Amazon reviews about how they’re a laxative.
I discovered him when he ate two huge jars of Vegemite straight up. As an Australian, this made me worry about his blood pressure.
“Awgh! It burns!”
It does help to reduce cavities, however. Xylitol limits acid production from fermenting bacteria, and it’s the acid which actually causes cavities (sugar, on the other hand, feeds the fermentation).
So use xylitol toothpaste if you can. You don’t swallow it, so the stomach concerns are nullified.
Personally, I find that sucralose is the only artificial sweetener that doesn’t taste kinda gross. Maybe dried up stevia leaves would be ok but I’m pretty sure I taste some leftover solvent in the refined stuff. The compound itself might be natural (not that that even really matters, as the sugar it is intended to replace is also natural), but since it’s not water soluable, processing it involves substances some would consider… unnatural.
Today I learned y’all dumb as fuck. What’s wrong with the comments?
I understand what you mean, dw there are still reasonable people
It is a good way to tax the poors while pretending it is ethical and for public health… May the poors would be healthier if they have less money?
Taxing sugar is protecting the poor people’s wallets long-term from having to buy Ozempic, surgeries, sneakers for jogging, and fitness trackers.
That’s the real way wealth gets transfered from the bottom to the top - by selling poison AND the treatment for it.
Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs’fault!
Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers…
Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.
Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…
Let’s go start a black market sugarbeet farm. Well take it in with our tax free pirate sugar.
Starved poors mean less poors so everyone will be richer. Easy how that works isn’t it?
I’m gonna go broke when they introduce the Spicy Tax.
Fuck you and your döner
- Bundestag, probably
Ordering “ohne scharf” because you’re weak ❌
Ordering “ohne scharf” because you can’t afford it ✅
“But there isn’t even sugar in this!”
“Yeah, but you still suck, so you’re paying anyway.”
Artificial sweeteners are arguibly often worse than sugar
EDIT: people, learn to read. I never said “All are worse”, I said “arguibly often”, meaning there is alot we don’t know and some of the artificial/ultra processed sweeteners show terrible things in studies. Just use the safest one like aspartame and don’t risk with weird unknown substances. For fucks sake… If you read a study that has found that using something has increased brain aging by 38% in humans and you still focus on some rat study insead of real human data as an excuse for all other studies being invalid, then I have a bridge to sell you.
If you drink 3000+ cans of diet a day you will approach the lower limit of what’s considered safe.
Weird comment knowing how little we know about artificial sweeteners and it’s long term impact on the body. Actually, quite dangerous comment.
But you can start here; https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/sugar-substitutes-new-cardiovascular-concerns
Or here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40902134/
Or here; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465821/
Also fun fact about sorbitol; https://source.washu.edu/2025/11/alternative-sweetener-sorbitol-linked-to-liver-disease/
Aspertame is one of the most studied chemicals in the world. It’s been found over and over to be “fine” at reasonable levels of intake. A handful of “more research is needed” conclusions doesn’t change that.
WHO considers it carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
In the same category as Aloe Vera and pickled vegetables. It’s things that are “possibly carcinogenic” not things that “if you eat them you will get cancer”.
Not all artificial sweeteners are the same, so it’s borderline meaningless to say we “know so little” about them.
Hell, aspartame is literally the most studied food additive in the history of the FDA, and has never been shown to have any adverse effects in any reputable study.
and has never been shown to have any adverse effects in any reputable study.
Again, dangerous comment. Please actually spend a minute looking around before making such bizzare claims.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8373935/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23097267/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700203/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324894/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638072/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39547074/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41765137/
There are like 30 other studies showing negative effects in mice and rats.
EDIT: Accidentally gave one bad study (see comment below), removed it. Rest seem valid.
I just opened up the last link and it took me 5 seconds to find this:
Rats that had received aspartame (1000 mg/kg b.wt.)
One liter of coke zero has 240mg of aspartame.
https://juiceradvices.com/how-much-aspartame-is-in-coke-zero/
1000mg per kg would mean, in a human with, let’s say 80kg, we’d need 80000mg to replicate the study case.
Since we - usually - don’t eat pure aspartame, that would mean you’d need to chug 333.33 liters of diet coke per day to replicate the aspartame intake of the rats in the study.
These studies are so far off of reality that I barely know where to begin.
Challenge accepted.
These studies are so far off of reality that I barely know where to begin.
And here I thought that, if anyone knew, it would be you!
I usually don’t bother answering a Gish Gallop, but…
1 - They didn’t complete the study, it was only 13 people with an existing history of mental disorders
2 - They basically said it’s so within the tolerances that it’s probably just chance, and that regular soda did as bad or worse
3 - Could only get the abstract, and it says nothing about their findings
4 - Combines aspartame and acesulfame-K, so it’s hard to tell from the abstract. The methodology doesn’t fill me with a lot of hope for it though.
5 - Seems to be the same study as 4 (same group of French people, same author), but for cardiovascular disease instead of cancer? Which, yeah, fat people drink diet soda, have heart disease, and get cancer more than thin people. I’m not sold on their methodology
6 - It’s a rat study. Again, I can’t see anything but the abstract, so it’s hard to say. But any study that doesn’t do a comparative analysis against regular sugar is suspect in my book
7 - Like 2, this one says that it’s probably just chance in the conclusion.
And look, if this was some new chemical on the block, maybe I’d agree that it should have some more testing. But it’s aspartame. It’s been being actively studied since 1965. It’s had a lot of negative PR backed by Domino (et al), which has created a huge amount of public concern. And will all of that, the studies still come out a hundred to one that there’s not really any link to anything.
Yes, you can find studies that say “aspartame scary.” But they’re basically like all the ones you linked above. Dubious. Most even admit they’re dubious (as seen above). And almost none of the ones that push the “scary” rhetoric compare the effects against regular table sugar, which is also heavily linked to increased cancer/heart disease risk. So it’s not even intellectually honest, even when their numbers happen to random out to slightly agreeing with them.
Are you just going to ignore the original argument that not once we have found something bad with aspartame, while there are many things we found? Sure, the data is incomplete, sometimes it’s in mix with something else, sometimes it’s high dose, sometimes it’s during pregnancy, but to claim it’s 100% consequence free under any circumstances and amounts is fucking idiotic and very unscientific.
EDIT: Fuck, I thought I’m on a science-related subreddit, not a circle jerk. Now everything makes sense.
Was my initial stance of “never found anything” a hyperbole? Sure. Not much of one though.
But your stance of “there are a hundred studies saying X for every one saying Y, but because there are a small handful saying Y we shouldn’t rule Y out” probably isn’t the hard scientific truth you think it is. It’s basically the same logic as being anti-vax.
And much like being anti-vax, it’s examining aspartame in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that it’s an alternative product to something that is factually shown to be more harmful, even in the best case scenario.
E.g.: Are vapes bad for you? Sure. Are they worse than cigarettes? Absolutely not. So even though the ideal is to probably use neither, I’d much rather somebody vape.
So this idea that “aspartame has, in a handful of studies (that go against the grain of the majority of studies) sometimes been shown to have negative effects, therefore artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar,” is a braindead take.
I asked chatGPT and it said not to believe you because your links won’t even open
The links open, champ.
Nope I just tried again, chatGPT said they won’t open
Oh come now, none of these articles even address the risk of sand mites or magnetic resonance.
Am I on reddit?
Unabashed fear-mongering. The last one is about zebrafish.
Please read the entire article. Same mechanisms apply to humans.
Why?
From the linked study:
Editor’s summary
Excess dietary intake of fructose can lead to hepatic lipid accumulation and the development of steatotic liver disease. In zebrafish, Jackstadt et al. found that dietary glucose was converted to sorbitol in the intestine, which was subsequently converted to fructose in the liver in the absence of gut microbiota. Antibiotic treatment of zebrafish to deplete gut microbiota resulted in hepatic steatosis, an effect mimicked by high concentrations of exogenous sorbitol and attenuated by inhibiting sorbitol formation or by intestinal repopulation with sorbitol-degrading Aeromonas bacteria. These results indicate that sorbitol is derived from glucose in the zebrafish intestine, implicate gut microbiota in protecting against sorbitol-induced steatosis, and suggest that dietary sorbitol, which is used as a sugar substitute, may increase the risk of developing steatotic liver disease. —Wei WongAbstract
Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is linked to a shift in the composition of the gut microbiome. Here, we found that depletion of the gut microbiome in adult zebrafish led to the development of steatotic liver disease in animals on standard diets. Using metabolomics and isotope tracing, we found that dietary glucose was converted to sorbitol by host intestinal cells. Although bacteria degraded sorbitol in control animals, sorbitol was transferred to the livers of fish when the gut microbiome had been depleted. Within the liver, sorbitol was converted into fructose 1-phosphate, which subsequently activated glucokinase and increased glycolytic flux, leading to increased hepatic glycogen and fat content. Inhibition of sorbitol production in microbiome-depleted animals was sufficient to prevent the development of steatotic liver, and colonizing the intestines of microbiome-depleted fish with sorbitol-degrading Aeromonas bacterial strains rescued the steatotic liver phenotype. Conversely, exogenous administration of high concentrations of sorbitol phenocopied gut microbiota depletion and induced hepatic steatosis. Together, these findings show that sorbitol-degrading bacteria in the gut protect against steatotic liver disease and suggest that excessive intake of dietary sorbitol may pose a risk for the development of MASLD.They’re implicating several types of natural sugars and saying that if you killed your gut microbiome with high concentration of sorbitol, then it might be bad for your liver. Ok??? Without any indication of the human-equivalent amounts involved, this is utterly useless. And this from a team who already went “HFCS feeds cancer!”? Seems like headline-chasers to me.
Also, since I read this earlier today:
The UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2015 disputed the claims of fructose causing metabolic disorders, stating that “there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.”[60]
Alulose, monk fruit, stevia. There are 3 fully “natural” sugar alternatives.
I agree that sugar alcohols can be bad for your gut and liver. As well as some are cut with carcinogenic fillers, but there are sugar alternatives that have VERY little effect on you. And actually alulose can be beneficial to your gut microbiome, while not affecting calorie intake and liver processing
Stevia, if the aftertaste doesn’t bother you, is definitely the most affordable and passes through the body with barely a trace. I know you didn’t mention cost, but I do admit that alulose is significantly more expensive than sucrose. Around $30 for a 5 lb bag vs $8 for a 25lb bag of sucrose. But Stevia is often sold without filler, like xylytol, which a lot of monk fruit is unfortunately cut with to make the amount bigger.
I’m in the UK and spoiler alert as we had sugar tax for years. Every drink is filled with aspartame and asulphare k to get under the limit.
What are good, and what happens are two different things. I think coca-cola abandoned their stevia experiment because it didn’t sell.
Last I remember it lowers the body’s tolerance to sugar which increases how much food people eat overall.
You remember incorrectly.
But I overstated it, it isn’t overall caloric increase.
You’re free to live in fear if you so choose. Personally, I find it foolish to get worried based on a single study, or a handful of small/animal/bad ones. Wake me up when there’s a meta study.
And the fructose in fruit juice isn’t “healthy” in any way. Even though it doesn’t hit insulin, it does the liver, and the caloric impact is the same.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Why do all these bills always amount to “fuck whatever it is poor people eat”?
The fructose isn’t, but fruit juices contain a bunch of other important elements. Moderate intake of orange juice (1/2l per day) has been proven to be beneficial.
I eat too many gummy bears to pretend to care about my sugar intake, but is 500ml a day really considered moderate? That’s so much orange juice.
considering that, for men, 3 liters of liquid is recommended per day, 500ml is very moderate. It also equates to roughly 240 kcal, so it won’t have any noticeable impact on your weight.
Tbh, more than 15% of total liquid consumption being OJ feels pretty high, especially given that that’s 60g of sugar. Like, I do eat gummy bears regularly, but I thought I was being really unhealthy with it at ~25g/day.
Maybe I don’t need to worry after all, lol
I feel our fear of sugar has been going too far. The daily recommended intake of sugar is 30g - that’s like 2 bananas. Shit, I eat that much for breakfast alone. And I’m currently still sitting on only 7% body fat.
A balanced diet means more than just cutting out carbs, sugars and everything that tastes like something from your life.
Oh, I eat carbs, I just avoid sugar because I don’t want to fuck up my teeth (more). I try to stay away from things like white bread, plain pasta, and pretzels that just turn into sugar when in contact with saliva, but the main part of my diet is lentils, beans, and grains, so I’m definitely not avoiding carbs in general.
But societally, I think you’re right- avoiding all carbs and sugars makes it really hard to get enough fiber, which makes a huge difference in how I feel, at least.
So if we added some vitamins to Coca Cola, should we drop the tax?
There shouldn’t be a tax in the first place.
wtf are you talking about. Soda costs more than juice. At my local store it’s literally DOUBLE the cost of soda.
These bills are taxing things that people are addicted to that are demonstrably bad for you. There is nothing good for you about soda. Juice is at least partially good for you. It has glucose and nutrients you actually need. Not high fructose corn syrup.
Apple Juice is $3.39 for 64 oz… Coke is $3.69 for 2L–about 68oz; essentially the same price.
I think what’s happening here is that the natural health halo of fruit juice is absolutely short circuiting your mind.
Ask yourself: if you added the same nutrients that are in juice to coca cola, would coca cola now be “healthy”?
At my grocery store it’s $.08/oz for Coke and .04/oz for orange juice.
Ask yourself: if you added the same nutrients that are in juice to coca cola, would coca cola now be “healthy”?
The amount of free sugars is what makes soda so bad. So if you switched the types of sugars in soda, then yes, it literally would be better for you than it currently is. Coke has food dyes in it that make your comparison not equal.
I didn’t say juice was “healthy”.
Yes, orange juice is more expensive, but apple juice is on par cost wise, so it makes sense to consider taxing it.
12 fl oz of coke has 39 grams of sugar. 12oz of apple juice has 35g of sugar. Less, but about the same.
So the question comes down to is sucrose really that much worse for you than fructose.
deleted by creator
