zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
We really need to change the regulations around the introduction of new chemical compounds to our environment on a mass scale.

We keep encountering situations like this where a new chemical compound was introduced, becomes ubiquitous in our diets or environments and only later do we find out "Oops, it has serious health or environmental consequences."

It is worth the cost of slower introduction of new materials to take the time to ensure that those materials are safe. We're still paying the cost of introducing lead into our environment in a myriad of subtle ways. We still don't fully understand what the cost of the introduction of microplastics or PFAS is going to be. And regardless of the whether this particular study holds up under replication it is looking increasingly likely that aspartame is not something we should be consuming.

And what's most frustrating is that the people who profited most from these compounds never pay for the damage they cause to generations.

>>dbingh+55
> And what's most frustrating is that the people who profited most from these compounds never pay for the damage they cause to generations.

It cost exactly $0 to not drink poison

>>Eumene+u5
That line is much more a reference to lead in the gasoline, pfas and microplastics in the drinking water. It in fact costs quite a bit of money to avoid these compounds and in many cases the damage was already done before people were aware of the risk.

Meanwhile, the investors and executives of the companies that produced these compounds are quite wealthy.