this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
177 points (85.5% liked)

News

34074 readers
3143 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What I don't get is why it took them decades to figure this out. Why have they been giving us sugar substitutes without understanding what they have been doing to us? Why were these approved for use in the first place?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This isn't pedantic, it's the answer, unless you can specifically tell me what "such things" are.

You're asking a question in a public forum, I don't see how me answering is offensive.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That’s the thing, I’m not sure what “such things” are, but I know “chemicals” is a bad classification. I mean food ingredients that have been later shown to be toxic or harmful. Or that have developed a such a reputation, even if the evidence is mixed or misinterpreted.

Trans fats wouldn’t be called a “chemical” but we use to think they were pretty awesome. And after looking around, it seems like sulfites are banned in some food contexts. I’m not finding as many examples as I would have assumed, tho.

So what’s the word for things that have been found to be bad and thus removed from food and drink? Or that have not been yet removed in all parts of the world, but are considered risky.

I wasn’t debating toxicity. I wasn’t talking about if any one example is truly toxic or not. That was what I was trying to avoid. All I wanted was a better word. Because “EVERYTHING IS A CHEMICAL” is a shitty response, and it seemed to me that telling the person water is a chemical is unproductive, and just being a dick. What word is not inclusive of all matter?

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Chemicals that have been shown to be harmful enough to warrant caution". I don't know what else to tell you.

The thing is, this specific chemical that we're talking about hadn't been shown to be harmful until now (and as you can see by the discussion elsewhere the jury is still out on if it has indeed been shown) so they couldn't have used that phrase either to argue that it should have been obvious why ingesting it is a bad idea.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don’t care if it’s toxic or increases the human lifespan.

I was calling out people being shitty to each other. And by asking about what word would be more appropriate, I was trying to make a point that would illuminate how smugly stating “everything is a chemical” is shitty. It comes off as neckbeard bullshit. It’s exemplary of public forums being toxic.

And I’ll reiterate again, I’m not defending the toxicity of anything here. I was just looking for a way for the discourse on the subject to avoid jerks replying that they drink water, a chemical, every day.

This is also why I said I wasn’t talking to you. Because I wasn’t trying to make a point with you. I was engaging with the person I replied to. But here you are talking about the toxicity of a specific thing, instead of seeing my point.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago

You were asking what word they should have used instead of "chemicals" and I told you the one option that might be appropriate if not for the specific circumstances. What else do you want?