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.
It cost exactly $0 to not drink poison
It cost 0 to not drink and drive
It cost 0 to ...
It's not a cost issue, it's a "we're slightly above average IQ monkeys, but we're still fucking monkeys" issue, we're easy to use and abuse, companies know that
You're sneaking free will in the back door. In your view, "victims" don't have free will but big companies do.
Weirdly enough the money is available when it generates more money or to lobby against regulation...
Do you think people wake up one day with the bright idea of becoming obese and dying at 45 of heart issues ?
You can only make decisions between the choices you're being provided, and if half of these choices are engineered to be addictive, on a global scale you're fighting a losing battle
> is more responsible for people making bad choices than engineers at facebook.
But... they're the same mentality, don't you see it ? It's been studied and developed by marketing people