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

Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#11

Post by Solvency »

gmiller123456 wrote: post #4
GRBLDeveloped wrote: post #3

Posted this on the other thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2B I read through this list before when I was talking to a conspiracy theorist about 5G. Radio frequencies are on this list. As are caffeic acid (found in coffee, wine, mint), aloe vera and pickled vegetables. Wouldnt be too scared by its admission to this list

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information. If you actually follow their advice, you'll likely just be switching to something that hasn't been studied as much.

Why does HN support and believe everything the WHO says when it comes to transmissible viruses but not anything else? Honest question.

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#12

Post by CamperBob2 »

denverllc wrote: post #6
GRBLDeveloped wrote: post #3

Posted this on the other thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2B I read through this list before when I was talking to a conspiracy theorist about 5G. Radio frequencies are on this list. As are caffeic acid (found in coffee, wine, mint), aloe vera and pickled vegetables. Wouldnt be too scared by its admission to this list

Not sure what your point is. Pickled vegetables contain nitrosamines [1] which are definite carcinogens. It’s the same reason that processed meats are associated with increased rates of colon cancer. Regarding caffeic acid, it’s possible that it may have different effects based on concentration and other conditions. In small doses it may be protective, in high doses it may be carcinogenic. From the Wikipedia article:…

Aspartame is interesting in that unlike caffeic acid, it's a newly-introduced substance that saw rapid, widespread adoption in the mass market. So, where's the statistical increase in cancer rates among aspartame consumers that would have accompanied such a trend, if aspartame were carcinogenic to humans? Is there one? No? Well, what made them even ask the question, then?

When everything causes cancer, nothing does. Like Proposition 65, actions like this ultimately leave us all less aware, less informed, and less safe.

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#13

Post by mikestew »

gmiller123456 wrote: post #4
GRBLDeveloped wrote: post #3

Posted this on the other thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2B I read through this list before when I was talking to a conspiracy theorist about 5G. Radio frequencies are on this list. As are caffeic acid (found in coffee, wine, mint), aloe vera and pickled vegetables. Wouldnt be too scared by its admission to this list

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information. If you actually follow their advice, you'll likely just be switching to something that hasn't been studied as much.

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information.

Well, it's useless if you don't read past the headline. But the link between eating red meat and colorectal cancer has been established for what, decades? So I fail to see what you're arguing against. If I were to "follow their advice", I'd be eating a vegetarian diet, which I'm pretty sure has been studied plenty.

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#14

Post by mikestew »

Solvency wrote: post #11
gmiller123456 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information. If you actually follow their advice, you'll likely just be switching to something that hasn't been studied as much.

Why does HN support and believe everything the WHO says when it comes to transmissible viruses but not anything else? Honest question.

Not that parent needs me to defend them, but they didn't say that they didn't believe the WHO. They just said the information wasn't helpful.

And as a public service reminder: HN is not a single hive mind.

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#15

Post by georgeg23 »

GRBLDeveloped wrote: post #3

Posted this on the other thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2B I read through this list before when I was talking to a conspiracy theorist about 5G. Radio frequencies are on this list. As are caffeic acid (found in coffee, wine, mint), aloe vera and pickled vegetables. Wouldnt be too scared by its admission to this list

The study on aloe seems compelling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537128/

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#16

Post by jcutrell »

mikestew wrote: post #13
gmiller123456 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information. If you actually follow their advice, you'll likely just be switching to something that hasn't been studied as much.

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information. Well, it's useless if you don't read past the headline. But the link between eating red meat and colorectal cancer has been established for what, decades? So I fail to see what you're arguing against. If I were to "follow their advice", I'd be eating a vegetarian diet, which I'm pretty sure has been studied plenty.

The problem is, it's _not advice._

People take different imperatives away from the same information.

What does it mean that red meat causes cancer? Does that mean that all things being equal, high quality red meat should be avoided? Does it mean that red meat is associated with other lifestyle factors that cause cancer? How well controlled are the variables? How was the meat cooked? All red meat, or just certain levels of leanness? Did the diet of the animal matter? What about their location? Was the meat itself tested for contaminants?

In most nutrition studies, the controls are extremely difficult to put in place, especially for things like cancer, because the tail is so long. Studies are almost exclusively observational in nature, relying on recall and cohorts that do or don't eat red meat, which has SO much selection bias associated with it.

Even if you got to the end and could say definitively that high quality sourced red meat is still carcinogenic in all of its possible cooked forms, that still isn't "advice." There are still benefits, and those benefits carried by something like red meat, and those benefits might outweigh the risks.

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#18

Post by justinator »

likpok wrote: post #10
justinator wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they didn't - they classified PROCESSED meat as a carcinogen. And they also have a FAQ to tell you what that means: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can... But if you would like to own the vegans, you're more than welcome to eat hot dogs all day, every day, exclusively and we'll see what happens.

From your link they call out both processed meat and red meat. They do distinguish that processed meat "causes" and red meat "probably causes" cancer.

With granularity, both explained in the FAQ and how they're classified (and classified differently).

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#19

Post by [deleted] »

Solvency wrote: post #11
gmiller123456 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when the WHO declared meat as a carcinogen. Pretty useless information. If you actually follow their advice, you'll likely just be switching to something that hasn't been studied as much.

Why does HN support and believe everything the WHO says when it comes to transmissible viruses but not anything else? Honest question.

[deleted]

Re: Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen

#20

Post by DropInIn »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #12
denverllc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your point is. Pickled vegetables contain nitrosamines [1] which are definite carcinogens. It’s the same reason that processed meats are associated with increased rates of colon cancer. Regarding caffeic acid, it’s possible that it may have different effects based on concentration and other conditions. In small doses it may be protective, in high doses it may be carcinogenic. From the Wikipedia article:…

Aspartame is interesting in that unlike caffeic acid, it's a newly-introduced substance that saw rapid, widespread adoption in the mass market. So, where's the statistical increase in cancer rates among aspartame consumers that would have accompanied such a trend, if aspartame were carcinogenic to humans? Is there one? No? Well, what made them even ask the question, then? When everything causes cancer, nothing does.…

One issue in cancer stats is the frequent misattribution of cancers to smoking.

You smoked for 4 years 20 years ago? Then that's what is put as the "cause" for damn near any cancer, which totally destroys the value of the stats.

What we can see though is that rates have generally gone up, either due to increased detection or due to actualized rate increases (most likely a combination of both).

Post reply on HN