The sources would be shot down for a reason and not some vast conspiracy but because the hill they chose to die on wasn't even real.
I would draw the opposite conclusion - safety analysis by whatever becomes a cause is a very poor way to both allocate resources.
Why would you say that? This is a serious accusation made without offering evidence and the only effect it can have is to greatly diminish the probability of having a productive debate.
I figure some people don't know about this, so they will look it up.
People who are reactive will vote me down regardless of what I say or proof I provide.
There is so much evidence of corporate manipulation of the high level government posts is nauseating.
Most planning authorities worldwide are captured by property developers.
The more money involved in an industry, the more likely it is that the industry regulator is captured.
Similarly, innovative ways of proving drug effectiveness, even if they are more efficient and accurate, will be difficult to bring into practice.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...
There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This just isn’t one of them.
[1] number includes EU and US, but that still leaves more than sixty others.
The two cannot be conflated.
Scientists can call for something to be re-considered, safety-wise, long after legislators have put their deals to bed. There are countless examples of this throughout history, where researchers, engineers, scientists have had to struggle very hard to get politicians - who have their own interests - to address the issue.
Too many times, research which runs counter to economic narratives is ignored or, worse, suppressed in order that people can 'continue living their lives as consumers unhindered'.
Suggesting that people bow to the authority of legislators over that of human-health scientists serves only to perpetuate the conditions which endanger us all.
Remember, asbestos was once 'scientifically and legally proven to be safe' at one point. Too many times in history, what the collective thinks is safe is only so, because the collective ("everyone thinks the same") says so ..
Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos-related_diseases#Hist...
Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority.
As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.
Don't worry, I stripped the <natural> XML tags from regular sugar and mixed them up with my aspartame; it cheats reality into thinking that the sweetener is natural, preventing it from hurting me.
> As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.
On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.
Authorities may be "in the pocket of Big Pharma", but by default, I'd still trust them much more than yours or mine non-expert opinion.
Of course, everybody including authorities is capable of making mistakes. It is generally a bigger mistake to think you know better than they do. Not always, but generally.
Go look up how many corporate stooges are in the place in the FDA over the years.
A good starting point is the history of Aspartame, I'd link some articles, but I suspect the sources would be shot down and evidence ignored. The people at the FDA were complicit in its approval, despite scientific evidence showing it was dangerous.