Aspartame to be declared 'possible carcinogen' by WHO
This is just the latest in a long line of do-gooder attempts to "get" artificial sweeteners. Sugar is bad for you too, of course, so you can't win. And fruit sugar (fructose) is the worst of all, allegedly
I once took on the Aspartame evangelists at some length, linking to many studies that debunked the scare. You can find my posts here. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Sources told Reuters that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." But historically, the agency's decisions have been controversial and confusing.
Reuters reported that an arm of the World Health Organization will soon name aspartame a "possible carcinogen." (Image credit: Steve Russell / Contributor via Getty Images)
An agency within the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon name the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame a "possible carcinogen," based on a review of 1,300 studies, Reuters reported, citing information from two sources who are knowledgeable about the process.
But don't panic: The arm of the WHO that did the review, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), uses a classification system for possible and known carcinogens that is notoriously confusing and often misleading, Reuters noted. Science writer Ed Yong summed it up well in a 2015 Atlantic article, in which he wrote, "Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are 'confusogenic to humans.'"
Here's what you need to know.
The IARC doesn't analyze how much of a product a person can safely consume before it poses a health risk, according to Reuters. When it comes to aspartame, the answer is a lot: Past assessments suggest that a typical, 150-pound (68 kilograms) person could safely consume the equivalent of the aspartame contained in more than 13 cans of Diet Coke a day.
The arm of the WHO that handles such assessments — the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA — has ruled on aspartame many times before. In its most recent review, the agency again held that the sweetener is safe to consume and set the acceptable daily intake at zero to 40 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of body weight. That translates to about 2,730 milligrams per day for a 150-pound person.
Again, this recommendation reflects how much aspartame can be consumed before it poses any health risk — not specifically cancer. Various agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have not found any definitive link between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer, the American Cancer Society states.
Interestingly, JECFA is also reviewing the available data on aspartame and will announce its findings July 14, the same day the IARC is expected to rule on the artificial sweetener.
The IARC ranks substances as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or not classifiable. These classifications serve as a rough way to rank the strength of the evidence linking a substance to cancer in humans; this evidence includes studies of humans, human cells and tissues and lab animals, as well as studies of the substances' similarity to known or probable carcinogens. The rankings aren't related to how much a substance might increase cancer risk, but how conclusively the IARC can say it causes cancer at all.
Tobacco, asbestos and processed meat are all classified as carcinogenic, meaning the IARC determined there's conclusive evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, even though the degree of risk differs among these substances.
The IARC considers glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, a "probable" carcinogen, meaning there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence that it can cause cancer in humans and either sufficient evidence showing it causes cancer in animals or strong evidence that it has similar characteristics to known or probable human carcinogens. (Regulatory agencies have contested the IARC's ruling on glyphosate, Reuters noted.)
For "possible" carcinogens, there's inconclusive or inadequate evidence they can cause cancer in humans but sufficient evidence that they cause cancer in animals or strong evidence that they have carcinogen-like characteristics. In some cases, something can rank as a possible carcinogen if there's "strong" evidence from cell and chemical studies but inadequate evidence in animals and humans.
Sources told Reuters that aspartame will fall into this category, alongside the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellphones. (Note that non-IARC authorities have said there's no or insufficient evidence linking cancer to cellphone use.)
Listing aspartame as a possible carcinogen is intended to motivate more research, sources close to the IARC told Reuters. Read more about the IARC's upcoming decision in Reuters.
****************************************************
If racial preferences in college admissions violate the 14th Amendment, then so do corporate ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ racial and gender hiring quotas
After the huge Harvard ruling, Robert Romano draws attention to another law that needs reanimation by SCOTUS: the 1964 Civil Rights Act
It’s a simple ruling: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
On June 29, the Supreme Court affirmed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code § 2000d’s prohibition on racial discrimination in federally funded programs, including higher education, at both public and private universities, in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision.
The law itself is clear: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
And that’s exactly what Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) — and colleges and universities across the country — have been doing for decades by offering racial preferences in school admissions to hit quotas. The formulas used in these cases discriminated on their face against white and Asian students.
Nobody disputed that Harvard and UNC were receiving federal funding. Nobody challenged that Title VI applied to the funding. Nobody contested that it disadvantaged certain students on the basis of race.
And nobody disputed Congress’ authority to enact Title VI under a clear mandate in the 14th Amendment in Section 1 that “No state… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and Section 5 that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” and that Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse to determine the terms and conditions for receipt of federal funds.
With such clear provisions of law, how could the court rule any other way? In Chief Justice John Roberts’ words, it was only through judicial “improvisation” that an altogether different interpretation of the 14th Amendment included precedents that have now been struck down, including 1978’s California v. Bakke, which had held that federally funded institutions could discriminate on the basis of race if the intent was to advantage groups that had been historically discriminated against. No more.
And so, now the court is returning to an original understanding of the provisions of the 14th Amendment as a measure of equal protection — and with equal meaning equal. No discrimination on any side, restoring what was the law of the land all along and in so doing, have provided the means to countering other discriminatory practices that have come out this era of “judicial improvisation.”
Undoubtedly that will come to include radical corporations’ discriminatory and racist hiring practices, which, just like college admissions, seek to redress historical racial injustices.
In short, if racial preferences in college admissions are unconstitutional under 14th Amendment equal protection, then so are those by corporations today via their “diversity, equity and inclusion” racial and gender hiring quotas, one of the cornerstones of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment model that seeks not profit, per se, but through ownership of companies to impose certain social agendas.
Today, the question of reverse discrimination posed by ESG’s Diversity & Inclusion corporate policies might be decided differently by today’s Supreme Court more than 40 years later. It would be up to those fired or cancelled to make the case they were discriminated against on the basis of race and/or sex.
As it is, corporate America’s racial and gender diversity preferences in favor of women and minorities, including at America’s biggest entertainment companies absolutely “discriminate[s] … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Just look at media and the entertainment industry.
AT&T first included D&I objectives in Sept. 2018 after its then-merger with Time Warner (it has since divested WarnerMedia to Discovery) was completed. In its 2018 report, AT&T’s then-CEO Randall Stephenson announced the company’s new Diversity & Inclusion Policy, “I am proud of our commitment to a diverse and inclusive workforce. WarnerMedia’s new Diversity & Inclusion Policy, announced in September, is a pioneering media industry commitment to give more opportunities to women, people of color and individuals from other underrepresented groups – both in front of and behind the camera.”
As for the other companies, Disney, which owns Marvel Comics, states in its 2020 report, “Diversity and inclusion (D&I). Our [Diversity & Inclusion] D&I objectives are to build teams that reflect the life experiences of our audiences, while employing and supporting a diverse array of voices in our creative and production content. Established six pillars that serve as the foundation for our D&I commitments – transparency, accountability, representation, content, community, and culture. Created a pipeline of next-generation creative executives from underrepresented backgrounds through programs such as the Executive Incubator, Creative Talent Development and Inclusion (CTDI), and the Disney Launchpad: Shorts Incubator. Championed targeted development programs for underrepresented talent. Hosted a series of culture-changing, innovation and learning opportunities to spark dialogue among employees, leaders, Disney talent and external experts. Sponsored over 70 employee-led Business Employee Resource Groups (BERGs) that represent and support the diverse communities that make up our workforce. The BERGs facilitate networking and connections with peers, outreach and mentoring, leadership and skill development and cross-cultural business.”
Mattel, which owns properties like He-Man, in its 2020 report stated its Diversity & Inclusion commitments: “As a purpose-driven company, we have raised the bar on our commitment to corporate citizenship… Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (“DEI”) is another key priority for Mattel, and we are building on our long heritage in this important area by continuing to advance our DEI efforts across the Company and representing diversity and inclusivity in our products.”
Discovery, which will control WarnerMedia including DC Comics in 2022, in its 2020 report announced its own Diversity & Inclusion objectives: “Our DE&I objective is to foster a culture of equity, inclusion, and mutual respect. In 2020 we emphasized our DE&I focus through Mosaic – our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion activation. Mosaic covers a range of initiatives, including: Unconscious Bias, Respect & Integrity; Allyship; Recruitment and Career Development; Content Diversity; Supplier Diversity; and Social Impact. We sponsor over 30 chapters of Employee Resource Groups (“ERGs”) across the globe with more than 2,500 members. ERGs draw upon their collection of unique experiences to help drive our mission of fostering a diverse and inclusive environment and provide important insights to our diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives… We have a department dedicated to social good that builds and oversees consumer and employee-facing initiatives and campaigns. We leverage our platforms, resources, and employee base to make an impact in our communities and with our key nonprofit partners. We have corporate partnerships aimed at addressing childhood hunger, racial injustice and wildlife preservation.”
And Hasbro in its 2020 report announced explicit racial and gender hiring quotas: “Diversity & Inclusion Goals: Increase the percentage of women in director and above roles globally to 50% by 2025. Expand ethnically and racially diverse employee representation in the U.S. to 25% by 2025. Include a 50% diverse slate of candidates for all open U.S. positions where there is underrepresentation.”
From a personnel point of view, when big mergers happen alongside the institution of Diversity & Inclusion policies, while, male, conservative Republicans are purged if they dare speak up. Or maybe the work just dries up.
And it’s not isolated to just the entertainment industry. It’s across the board. A March 2021 ESG Report by Pfizer set 2025 “opportunity parity goals” including “increasing our minority representation from 19% to 32% and doubling the underrepresented population of African Americans/Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos.” Those are racial hiring quotas.
But Diversity & Inclusion goals go even further than just violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
It impacts social media, too. For example, prior to the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, and flush with billions of dollars of capital from ESG investing, social media platforms like Twitter have pursued aggressive Diversity & Inclusion and other politically charged objectives, including censorship.
Diversity hiring quotas like these appear to squarely run afoul of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on employment discrimination on the basis of race or sex: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or … to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
However, thanks to the 1979 ruling by the Supreme Court ruling Steelworkers v. Weber which ruled that employment policies that include racial preferences on the basis of race and sex in favor of women and minorities, which plaintiffs argued was reverse discrimination, were not a violation of the Civil Rights Act, in effect legalizing employment discrimination against whites and males. This was a sharp departure from more racially neutral interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by federal courts that preceded the decision.
Then Associate Justice William Rehnquist, who would go on to become the Court’s 16th Chief Justice in 1986, in his dissenting opinion, compared the Court’s rewriting of the Civil Rights Act to the totalitarian regime portrayed in George Orwell’s 1984, writing that law was written plainly, “Taken in its normal meaning, and as understood by all Members of Congress who spoke to the issue during the legislative debates, this language prohibits a covered employer from considering race when making an employment decision, whether the race be black or white.”
Rehnquist blasted the majority of the court, adding, “the Court behaves much like the Orwellian speaker earlier described, as if it had been handed a note indicating that Title VII would lead to a result unacceptable to the Court if interpreted here as it was in our prior decisions. … Now we are told that the legislative history of Title VII shows that employers are free to discriminate on the basis of race: an employer may, in the Court’s words, ‘trammel the interests of the white employees’ in favor of black employees in order to eliminate ‘racial imbalance.’… Our earlier interpretations of Title VII, like the banners and posters decorating the square in Oceania, were all wrong.”
Rehnquist in 1979’s Steelworkers v. Weber dissented in a ruling on Title VII that allowed for race-based hiring even though the law explicitly prohibited it, calling it “Orwellian” and quoting 1984. More than 40 years later and now the edifice of the ivory tower is crashing down.
The majority of the current Supreme Court are all considered acolytes of Rehnquist. All were regarded as constitutionalists, originalists and textualists when they were nominated by conservative presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the latter of whom just secured an historic 6 to 3 majority on the nation’s highest court with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who all ruled to restore the 14th Amendment’s equal protection rule.
The June 29 decision was on college admissions. And so any case potentially overturning Steelworkers v. Weber would still need to work its way through the courts, and surely, ESG-owned companies imposing “diversity, equity and inclusion” hiring quotas provide the ripest target. The ruling here on straight 14th Amendment grounds, coupled with Congress’ power of the purse, assuredly will soon spell the end of race and gender discrimination by employers explicitly prohibited by Title VII.
Again, Sec. 5 of 14th Amendment states: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” and Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Which is precisely what it did via Title VII. If there had been a split or adverse ruling on college admissions, I’d be more skeptical the court might go in this direction but this is as clear a signal as any to which way they’re going.
Per the ruling, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” So, let’s end discrimination, not just in college admissions, but also hiring, banking and commerce. What we’re learning with the court’s ruling today is that discriminatory practices can best be ended when there is an incentive that a consenting party will not be discriminated against as well on the same or other bases. The Bakke decision was perpetuating animus, and so surely, the Steelworkers decision is as well.
It’s time for this to end.
Congress can play a role, too, if it chooses. In recent years, particularly following the election of former President Donald Trump, supporters of Trump have found themselves in discriminatory, being denied services such as banking, public accommodations like sitting at restaurants and yes, employment discrimination. Insofar as Title VI addressed racial discrimination, and Title VII address racial, sexual and religious discrimination, it would be up to Congress, not courts, to expand these franchises. Viewpoint discrimination is no less pernicious than other forms of discrimination and, in some ways, are worse because they seek to police wrongthink and issues of conscience.
The 14th Amendment includes a broader grant than simply protection against racial discrimination, and Section 5 gives Congress a powerful tool to address these sorts of injustices if it chooses. Anyone who questions the Supreme Court’s decision need only consult with Title VI to see the clear framework Congress set forth in 1964.
For now, the Supreme Court’s restoration of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection under Title VI may now eventually extend to Title VII, creating massive constitutional and civil liability for publicly traded corporations that have chosen to adopt ESG’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” racial and gender hiring quotas. This is another pillar that can and I foresee will one day be struck down as well.
****************************************************
Arts boss who said people cannot change their sex and was branded a 'cancer that needs to be removed' by colleagues wins employment tribunal case
An Arts quango boss whose view that humans cannot change sex was branded a 'cancer that needs to be removed' by colleagues has won an employment tribunal case.
A panel ruled that Denise Fahmy was subjected to harassment by fellow staff at the Arts Council, who circulated 'extremely offensive comments' about gender-critical opinions that she held.
She was left 'deeply upset' by the remarks that created an 'intimidating hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment' for her at work, a ruling concluded.
Bosses at the organisation were also blasted for failing to take a hostile petition down immediately and for expressing their personal views on a contentious transgender rights issue in a staff meeting.
Ms Fahmy said after the judgment she was 'delighted' to have won her claim at Leeds Employment Tribunal against her former employer.
'It cannot be acceptable that people like me, who believe people can't change their sex, are subjected to harassment at work. And worse still, that employers encourage and collude in this behaviour,' she said.
She went on: 'People in the arts, and especially women, are facing a tide of bullying with spurious accusations of transphobia, and many are frightened to speak out as they risk public cancellation.
'Institutions like the Arts Council need to be held accountable, when they are biased and enable harassment of gender critical people.'
The judgment published yesterday by Employment Judge Jim Shepherd told how Ms Fahmy had been a relationship manager for the Arts Council since 2008 and in recent years had warned bosses about the quango's links to pressure group Stonewall and its belief in gender identity.
In April 2022 she raised concerns about allegations of transphobia being levelled at a charity called the LGB Alliance, which had received a grant from a fund created by the Arts Council but saw it cancelled after a social media backlash.
During an online Teams meeting attended by some 411 staff, deputy chief executive Simon Mellor branded the LGB Alliance a 'divisive organisation that has a history of anti trans-exclusionary activity'.
Ms Fahmy told him the charity is not anti-trans and asked how gender-critical views were protected in the Arts Council.
The following month, another employee sent an email to all staff declaring that the Arts Council's LGBTQIA+ working group was raising a formal grievance about the LGB Alliance awards and also the 'conflict of interest of senior members of staff with clear, homophobic/anti-trans views in positions of decision-making'.
It included a spreadsheet inviting colleagues to sign their support, and judges said the petition 'included some extremely offensive comments referring to anti-trans (gender critical) language from numerous employees'.
One said: 'We shouldn't have to put up with this any more than we would racist or sexist behaviour. It's time to stamp out bigotry in the Arts Council in general.
'This cancer needs to be removed from our organisation. Hatred of others for their differences should not be tolerated.'
Ms Fahmy resigned in September after making a 'dignity at work' complaint which was upheld before she quit, with chairman Sir Nicholas Serota telling her: 'The content and tone [of the] email and accompanying petition were capable of causing offence to persons such as yourself who hold gender critical views.'
The Tribunal insisted it was neutral in the transgender debate but noted that gender-critical views - including that 'sex is biological and immutable' - are a protected belief under the Equality Act.
It said it was 'inappropriate' for Mr Mellor to have provided his personal views and 'express solidarity with one side of the debate' in the meeting about the LGB Alliance, but that although his comments were upsetting they did not constitute harassment.
However the all-staff email and comments 'were unwanted conduct which had the purpose and effect of violating the claimant's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant'.
In addition it was 'unreasonable and inappropriate' for the petition to be left up for 26 hours, while the Arts Council had not updated its policies or provided training on the 'contentious' issue of trans-activist and gender-critical beliefs.
The Tribunal rejected Ms Fahmy's claim of victimisation but concluded: 'The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim of harassment related to the protected characteristic of religion or belief is well-founded and succeeds'.
An Arts Council England spokesman said: ‘We are pleased that the ruling confirmed that two allegations of harassment and two claims of victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed, and that there was nothing in the judgment to support the accusation of institutional bias.
‘We are reflecting on the judgment which upheld two allegations of harassment in relation to a petition set up by a junior member of staff who no longer works for us, and we note the tribunal’s acknowledgement of steps taken by us to disable the petition and address the incident at the time.’
***********************************************
Colorado bigotry
The feature that arrests us in the Supreme Court’s vindication of the Christian web-site designer is that the case arose from Colorado. That is the state that tried to put a Christian wedding cake maker out of business because he didn’t want to make a cake celebrating a gay marriage. Colorado lost, at that time, on narrow grounds — members of its Civil Rights Commission themselves had exhibited hostility toward religious Christians.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 20218 wrote the majority opinion, made quite an issue of this. “We can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination,” Justice Kennedy quoted one commissioner as saying. The commissioner had added: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.” That shocked the high court.
At the time, we issued an editorial asking whether Colorado would apologize, and not only to the Christians whom members of its Civil Rights Commission had insulted. It was amazing to us that Colorado went all the way to the Supreme Court only for it to be discovered that the Civil Rights Commission was the bigoted party. If we’d done that with public funds, we’d have handed in our resignation.
We don’t mind saying that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop was disappointing to us. We liked the way Justice Kennedy marked the hostility at the Civil Rights Commission. We, though, were in favor of a full and unambiguous ruling in favor of the rights of the baker, Jack Phillips, who, his website suggests, is now in his third lawsuit attempting to secure his First Amendment Free Exercise rights.
Which brings us back to the case decided today, 303 Creative v. Elenis. The case involves a website designer, Lorie Smith, rather than a baker, but the broad principles are similar. Ms. Smith feared the prospect that the state would use its anti-discrimination law against her because, while she would “gladly create” websites for “clients of any sexual orientation,” she would not produce content that contradicts “biblical truth.”
Given the plain language of the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, we’ve long thought that statute would have to give way. Or, as we’ve put it, the fact that one fears God must never be cause to fear one’s government. The intransigence of Colorado in both cases is remarkable, even tragic. We hope that someday the Centennial State will accept this ruling and wonder, Whatever were we thinking?
https://www.nysun.com/article/colorado-whos-sorry-now
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
1 comment:
All minority set-asides are also now overturned by the recent Supreme Court ruling against Affirmative Action. Government can no longer reject lower bids to award contracts to minority owned businesses based on Affirmitive Action.
Post a Comment