This chart is cherry-picked nonsense by someone with an agenda against anything that can't be classified as "natural", as if that term means anything about how healthy or not something is.
I mean, look at the aspartame entry, for example. "FDA reports a large list of adverse health effects with overconsumption". What's "overconsumption" here? In fact, why not check with FDA itself? Looking at their website, they specifically point out that aspartame is safe to consume for the general public, unless you have "a rare hereditary disease known as phenylketonuria (PKU)". They even list the quantities of aspartame you must consume before it could reach harmful levels, which match what I described earlier in the thread. Based on FDA's own simplified reports, you have to, on average, consume aspartame equal to 150 (!) tablespoons of sugar in a single day before you are even at risk of adverse effects. This chart entry grossly misrepresents FDA's findings, as well as the over 90 countries that have categorized aspartame as safe. Aspartame has received more research and study than Stevia, which this chart seems to have a hard-on for. Sure, Stevia is great and all (if you can accept that it has a unique taste unlike sugar), but this chart is not trustworthy in how it represents it. That leaves everything else in the chart questionable, at best.
Much of this nonsense has its roots in the same bullshit that has caused MSG to be so reviled. There's even
a Wikipedia page about the controversy.
