Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 315 posts

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#31

Post by fermentation »

Groxx wrote: post #15
gnicholas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to see a Prop 65 warning on the organic frozen spinach we get delivered by Amazon Fresh/Whole Foods. Apparently it's due to Cadmium. It makes me wonder if the stuff you buy in-store doesn't have the same risk, or if they just don't label it as obviously as online.

You can find prop 65 warnings on basically anything heated to browning too. Coffee, cooked asparagus, bread, the list is gigantic: https://franzbakery.com/HTML/prop65

I’ve seen the prop65 warnings about reproductive health on Japanese canned coffee and tea, but I’ve never seen these warnings on any other canned drinks here in the US

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#32

Post by caturopath »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #17
caturopath wrote: post #3

I think that there's some weird sort of moralization aspect to alternative sweeteners or just a 'too good to be true' attitude. In how many other areas would we spend so much time looking at such scant evidence and taking it seriously?

I've always thought they tasted terrible.

It's a big category. Aspartame has a really distinctive taste, but lots of sweeteners like sucralose and allulose not so much.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#33

Post by adrr »

kiba wrote: post #4

Note that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a carcinogenic agent in humans. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your gut microbiomes. As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically sweetened drinks. Instead of being a chronic diet coke d…

Drinking five diet Cokes a day is probably healthier than drinking 5 regular cokes a day. Sugar is linked to diabetes and other ailments.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#34

Post by [deleted] »

kiba wrote: post #4

Note that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a carcinogenic agent in humans. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your gut microbiomes. As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically sweetened drinks. Instead of being a chronic diet coke d…

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#35

Post by notJim »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #17
caturopath wrote: post #3

I think that there's some weird sort of moralization aspect to alternative sweeteners or just a 'too good to be true' attitude. In how many other areas would we spend so much time looking at such scant evidence and taking it seriously?

I've always thought they tasted terrible.

You get used to it after a while. I actually sometimes prefer a Coke Zero because of its unique taste (though I try to avoid soda altogether.)

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#37

Post by frickinLasers »

goda90 wrote: post #26
caturopath wrote: post #3

I think that there's some weird sort of moralization aspect to alternative sweeteners or just a 'too good to be true' attitude. In how many other areas would we spend so much time looking at such scant evidence and taking it seriously?

I've seen lots of concern about preservatives, colors, and flavorings in foods as well, but sweeteners have a more pronounced role as replacements for sugar. This makes them far more visible in general.

Aspartame also rapidly "breaks down into residual components, including aspartic acid, phenylalanine, methanol, and further breakdown products including formaldehyde and formic acid" on ingestion. [1]

Even with no smoking gun for cancer, why would anyone tempt fate after reading that?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Metabolites

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#38

Post by XorNot »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #27
brador wrote: post #2

Are there any other common food ingredients that have a high chance of causing cancer?

These are not common food ingredient, and they are not supposed to be injested. I was doing the dishes the other day, and like usually, doing a terrible job--trying to save water too. I was thinking what damage could soap residue do? I then noticed the Dawn Soap. From and center they listed all the ingredients. (So front and center it looks like a lawyer told them to place the ingredients front, and center?) Do I sti…

These are literally, literally, the same ingredients which are found in "natural" (animal-fat derived) soaps.

This is some "dihydrogen monoxide" grade FUD.

Re: Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation

#39

Post by kitsunesoba »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #17
caturopath wrote: post #3

I think that there's some weird sort of moralization aspect to alternative sweeteners or just a 'too good to be true' attitude. In how many other areas would we spend so much time looking at such scant evidence and taking it seriously?

I've always thought they tasted terrible.

Their taste is definitely odd. It’s sweet but not really, and often leaves a soapy aftertaste. The only way I can deal with it personally is if the food in question is flavorful enough to drown out the strangeness, in which case it probably didn’t need sweetening much anyway.
Post reply on HN