Assertion: aspartame | /r/HasProperty | harmful
Facets:
value: potentially
type: DEGREE
value: to human health
type: TRANSITIVE-OBJECT
value: to the brain
type: TRANSITIVE-OBJECT
value: to unborn babies
type: TRANSITIVE-OBJECT
value: particularly
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: In July 2009, Asda initially won the legal case after the trial judge construed the "no nasties" labelling to "not mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy.
text: Many researchers disagree that aspartame is harmful.
text: Aspartame can also be particularly harmful to the brain.
text: Aspartame may also be harmful to unborn babies.
text: In July 2009, Asda won the legal case after the trial judge construed the 'no nasties' labelling to "not mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy", though it might be appealed.
text: It certainly makes sense that any additives that will injure health should be illegal, so tell me why are there additives such as Aspartame in the food and drink in the supermarkets when Aspartame is in fact classed as a poison or toxin and is harmful to human health?
text: The answer that emerges from a detailed quantitative and qualitative scrutiny of the studies, and the ANS panel’s representations and interpretations of those studies, is that the panel frequently treated studies that provided no prima facie evidence of harm as if they were unproblematically reliable, even when they were very weak studies, yet discounted the results of every single one of 73 studies that indicated that aspartame could be harmful, deeming all those studies to be unreliable and/or insufficient, even though some were more powerful and sensitive than some of the seemingly negative studies that the panel deemed reliable.