But juice resembles fruit more than sweetened drinks… So clearly better then.

You mean the price a smoothie drops? No. Does that or sweetener drinks give people more money in their wallet? No.

“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.

Yes it is, and it’s solved not by soft drinks but making healthy food more accessible even to the most financially streched families. Shit food is always cheaper than healthy food. Yet they’ll push to the corporations preferred and most profitable artificial sweeteners.

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.

So you in favour of governments taking actions that remove products from the market and remove the choice from people? You like artificial sweeteners so everyone should have them?

Breathing contaminated air is a concern and does need to be addressed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro

Whatabouttery isn’t helpful here. "If you aren’t concerned by pollution, you shouldn’t be concerned by sweeteners. Or… We could be concerned about both.

Downplaying risks to plant seeds of doubt has been successful in tobacco, fossil fuels etc. It is why industry invests in partial “science”. Parroting those lines doesn’t make society better off.

Many industries are casting doubt on polluting behaviour with the “conclusively prove the link or it’s speculation” argument. It’s why the Precautionary Principle is important.

Perfectly safe, yo…

“IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically, for hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer).”.

Industry astroturfing and funding partial “science” has been highly successful.

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.

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.

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.

WHO considers it carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released

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.

No: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released

Aspartame is great though: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released

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.

With a QA? Surely download and install a game is the first basic test case?

Oh gosh. Amateurs. Surely maintain last schedule stored locally and only update if connected and change present.