Some questions have fuzzy, ambiguous answers that are subject to interpretation. It was that way last year too. It's not a reason to get frustrated with science. It's an ongoing process.
I don't think this is "getting frustrated with science" as much as "getting frustrated with the reporting on science".
I don't think people are arguing that doing aspartame research is pointless so much as they are annoyed at the sensationalistic approach taken to report of that research. There is a large difference between "Aspartame may cause cancer" and "Aspartame may cause cancer if you drink 14 cans of diet coke a day".
It's pointless distractions at best and downright fear-mongering at worse in the attempt of getting ad-revenue from clicks.
But "You can believe anything you want" is a personal choice, there's extra nuance that explains why two bodies disagree if you want to look for it. Ultimately it's on us to read further than headlines or not.
This article title is fine in my opinion as it mostly covers the disagreement between two bodies as you said, but before that one I saw at least 2-3 articles this week that were just "WHO says aspartame causes cancer". That's the thing that angers people because it's obviously clickbait
The answer to the question of whether aspartame is safe for humans is not fuzzy or ambiguous. We haven't found the truth for certain yet, but it will be very black and white eventually.
It could be safe for some people and not others. It could be safe in combination with some foods and diets but not others. It could be safe according to one scientist's threshold of acceptable risk but not another's. It could be safe in the sense of being less bad than sugar but not in comparison to drinking water. And so on.
