U.S. taxpayers pay $850 million in annual dues to the World Health Organization, expecting more than deflection and lousy science. Yet this United Nations subagency continues to spread fear, often issuing alarming warnings that are completely detached from reality.Last July, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer released a dire assessment labeling the non-sugar sweetener aspartame, commonly found in diet drinks, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Health experts have pushed back, criticizing the review’s research as “flawed.” Emails recently obtained by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation reveal U.S. government officials’ deep frustrations with this global bureaucracy. The WHO and IARC should not receive another dime of taxpayers’ money until they address their sloppy scientific research, among other problems.While it would be helpful to use public information requests to see how the WHO responded, watchdogs and journalists face significant challenges in accessing these records.July 14, 2023, was far from dull for scientists studying food and beverage safety. On that day, IARC released a frightening assessment on aspartame, while the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives published their own, more nuanced review of the sweetener.The WHO’s mixed messages on aspartame upset U.S. Department of Agriculture regulator Mary Frances Lowe, who called the WHO’s communication “disappointing risk communication” in a message to her colleagues. In response, the Food and Drug Administration stepped in to counteract the IARC’s claims and convince the public and media that JECFA had presented the correct science.FDA employee Shruti Kabadi wrote on July 14, “JECFA concluded that there was no concern for carcinogenicity of oral exposure to aspartame in animals. There was no concern for genotoxicity of oral exposure to aspartame. The evidence of association of aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing.” Shruti’s colleague, Sabine Francke, praised JECFA’s findings, writing back, “I saw the Jecfa report — excellent rebuttal to the IARC attempt!! Science prevailed.”The FDA acted quickly to clarify the information on its website and to rebut IARC’s flawed analysis in media correspondence. Regulatory staff at the FDA and USDA were understandably frustrated, as their research supporting aspartame’s safety was undermined by IARC’s shoddy science. In response, both agencies pushed for “action by WHO to prevent future duplicative reviews of food use chemicals by IARC and the WHO/FAO joint scientific advice program.”While it would be helpful to use public information requests to see how the WHO responded, watchdogs and journalists face significant challenges in accessing these records.The WHO’s “Information Disclosure Policy” states, “Information, the disclosure of which may adversely affect WHO’s relations with a Member State or other intergovernmental organization” is considered “confidential information” that “is not normally subject to disclosure.” In other words, any documentation of any disagreement between the WHO and any of its 194 member states can be shielded from public view. This broad-based prohibition on information disclosure has come at the cost of assessing aspartame safety, not to mention addressing global pandemics and tobacco harm reduction efforts.And despite celebrating “World Press Freedom Day” every May 3 and claiming that “freedom of information is an integral part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression,” the United Nations does not have a FOIA-style law on the books. Longtime U.N. correspondent Thalif Deen notes, “A long-standing proposal for a FOIA at the United Nations has failed to get off the ground due largely to the inaction by the 193-member General Assembly, the U.N.’s highest policy making body, resulting in the lack of transparency in the inner workings of the U.N. and its secretariat.”At most, FOIA requesters will only have access to one-half of the conversation between U.S. federal agencies and the WHO on sweetener safety. It will remain a mystery why the WHO insists on ignoring the wealth of evidence highlighted by the FDA and its own Joint Expert Committee with the Food and Agriculture Organization. This lack of transparency is not so sweet for taxpayers funding the WHO and consumers looking for sugar substitutes and sound science.

A newly digitized set of records reveal the plight and bravery of enslaved people in the North

Why We Love Twitter: 'Foghorn Leghorn' Goes Viral After Kamala Breaks Out New Accent in Detroit

Kamala's Pittsburgh Remarks Show She Can't Unburden Herself From What Has Been - No Matter the Accent

Shock Video: Colorado Bandits Back Up Car to Smash Into Gun Store

Apple revamped its MacBook lineup, starting with the M1 Pro MacBook Pro and the M2 MacBook Air. With an industrial design, more ports, a beautiful keyboard, a fast chip, incredible battery life, and a proper 1080p FaceTime camera, these laptops offered everything users had been begging for. After all, before these releases, Apple relied on Intel chips with poor performance and overheating issues, and the company's design was also a terrible choice: The butterfly keyboard was too fragile, the front-facing camera was bad, and Apple only offered USB-C ports. In 2021, Apple showed it was listening to customers and revealed the M1 Pro and M1 Max MacBook Pro. At the time, the best feature was the updated MagSafe cable. As someone who had destroyed a 16-inch MacBook Pro after stumbling on the cable, I couldn't be happier about the MagSafe cable making a comeback. Image source: José Adorno for BGR However, as the years went by, I forgot about it. One reason was the iPhone's change from a Lightning port to USB-C. With that, whether traveling or at home, it was easier to have one charger with one cable instead of switching cables to charge a device. Interestingly, I'm not alone in saying users now forget this MacBook's best feature. On Threads, user Brandon Lee posted about that. Post by @thisistechtoday View on Threads While many people in his comments said they couldn't live without the MagSafe cable, several people also don't use it. I wouldn't say Apple needs to remove the MagSafe in favor of another USB-C cable. However, the company might have been right about the variety of ports it offers, as several users got used to having everything in the cloud. As a MacBook Pro user, I find it handy to have extra ports. Despite the SD port, I have never used the HDMI one, and I'm sad to say I also forgot about the MagSafe port. I hope I'll never stumble on my MacBook's cable again. Don't Miss: When will Apple release new M4 Macs? The post MacBook’s best feature has been forgotten by its users appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Today’s deals: $17 myQ, $399 Apple AirPods Max, $40 Fire TV Stick 4K Max, $180 off Sonos Arc, more Labor Day deals: Deep Apple discounts, $35 in Amazon credit, $279 Nintendo Switch OLED, more Today’s deals: $40 Sony headphones, $50 Ninja blender, $140 AirPods 3, $60 foldable camera drone, more Labor Day weekend deals: $32 Magic Bullet bundle, $5 iPhone chargers, $199 iPad, $180 off Ninja cookware, more

At least 41 people were killed and more than 180 wounded Tuesday when Russia hit a military institute in the central town of Poltava, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, in one of the deadliest single strikes of the war.

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is scheduled to testify publicly on Sept. 10 before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, where he will be grilled about the thousands of deaths in his state's nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After a summer of historic tumult, the path to the presidency for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris this fall is becoming much clearer.

Could a simple blood test help predict a woman's three-decade risk of heart disease? Yes, claims new research that found women with high levels of three specific blood markers had a greater than threefold increased risk for heart disease within 30 years, compared to women...