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

Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 584 posts

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#121

Post by pinkmuffinere »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #103
dimitar wrote: post #98

This is awful reporting. Aspartame has been studied for more than 40 years and no regulatory body in any country has found it to be cancerogenic; it is a risky substance for people with a rare desease called Phenylketonuria. So, the reader will be under the impression that it will cause cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for which sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real cancer risk.

But what does California's proposition 65 say about it?

I know this is a joke, but if anyone’s curious: Prop65 says you have to tell people if your product contains chemicals from a list of carcinogenic substances. The list is kept up-to-date by California. Prop65 has no punishment for over-reporting though - you can slap on a warning “just for fun” if you want.

Unless California has aspartame on its list, prop65 says nothing about this.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#122

Post by taeric »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #104
cheekibreeki2 wrote: post #86

Just returned from Ireland and every 'regular' soda was full of disgusting artificial sweeteners. In the usa these would be labeled diet. And of course sucralose was pretty common and we're now finding scary things about its harm to the human body. Sugar really isn't that bad..

Sugar in the amount put in soda absolutely is terrible for you. The problem definitely is with people drinking too much soda, period, but replacing your average Americans's diet soda consumption with sugar soda consumption works out to an average increase of ~73 calories/person/day. Of course, most of that consumption is being done by the subset of the population currently primarily drinking diet soda, which multiple…

73 calories actually sounds misleadingly low? How is that calculated?

I think this is what you are correcting in the rest of the post? In that a single soda is typically double that. And many folks drink more than a single soda. Considerably more.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#123

Post by jcutrell »

Honestly, what I want to know in a headline like this is "what changed?"

As someone who deals with health anxiety already, I have done my fair share of research on things like this. Aspartame, along with most other artificial sweeteners, have not been proven to be carcinogenic in many studies done over a 40 year period. Additionally, the hazard ratio of any of these sweeteners in comparison to the equivalent consumption of sugar is laughably small.

So, when something like this happens, I really want to know what the trigger was. My fast-brain fills in the gap with "there was a new breakthrough in research." But, this categorization doesn't imply that necessarily. Just that they are doing a review. But why now?

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#124

Post by api »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #121
TheRealPomax wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what does California's proposition 65 say about it?

I know this is a joke, but if anyone’s curious: Prop65 says you have to tell people if your product contains chemicals from a list of carcinogenic substances. The list is kept up-to-date by California. Prop65 has no punishment for over-reporting though - you can slap on a warning “just for fun” if you want. Unless California has aspartame on its list, prop65 says nothing about this.

Saw a California shirt once that was a prop65 warning: "This shirt has been determined by the state of California..."

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#125

Post by EA-3167 »

dimitar wrote: post #98

This is awful reporting. Aspartame has been studied for more than 40 years and no regulatory body in any country has found it to be cancerogenic; it is a risky substance for people with a rare desease called Phenylketonuria. So, the reader will be under the impression that it will cause cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for which sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real cancer risk.

I file it under the same category as, "The Daily Mail trying to divide every known substance into ones which cause cancer, and ones which cure it."

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#126

Post by netbioserror »

arbitrage wrote: post #11
LarsAlereon wrote: post #8

To clarify, this doesn't mean aspartame in food is harmful, it means that in certain circumstances it's possible for the chemical to cause cancer. For example, workers exposed to extremely high levels during manufacturing, or breakdown products formed during improper storage.

[flagged]

Water in the stomach isn't harmful, but water in the lungs absolutely is.

If the human digestive system can trivially break down the amounts of aspartame found in a diet coke, it's fairly pointless for just about anyone to entertain the scenario of inhaling a bucket of pure aspartame crystals.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#127

Post by gcanyon »

Healthcare Triage did a review of the research years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf82FfX-wuU

tl;dw: artificial sweeteners get a bad rap, multiple studies have found no harm, studies that did find harm were on rats (which often doesn't translate to humans), and the harms associated with excess sugar consumption are numerous, well-founded, and damning.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#128

Post by hulitu »

nightski wrote: post #73

Thats interesting. All the recent scientific evidence I have been seeing has been saying that Aspartame really isn't bad. This seems suspect. It's so hard to trust science today since it has become so intertwined with politics and corporate agendas.

AFAIK it can cause diarrhea.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#129

Post by crooked-v »

mjburgess wrote: post #120
sodathrowaway wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, is it good or neutral for you? I've always felt like these diet drinks were just marketing to make you think everything was fine, feel free to drink as many as you want. I've worked with a few people that would go through 4-6 Coke Zeros every day. In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Personally, I'll drink a Mexican Coke with…

> In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, right? Why on earth would you think that? It's carbonated water with a tiny amount of food dye, sweeter and caffeine. The latter of which, iirc, has generally positive effects.

Well, the mild acidity is bad for your teeth. Other than that there doesn't seem to be much that stands out as an issue, at least from what we know so far.

Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports

#130

Post by cwillu »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #109
dimitar wrote: post #98

This is awful reporting. Aspartame has been studied for more than 40 years and no regulatory body in any country has found it to be cancerogenic; it is a risky substance for people with a rare desease called Phenylketonuria. So, the reader will be under the impression that it will cause cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for which sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real cancer risk.

Why is it awful reporting? The WHO’s cancer division (IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer) is labeling it as being, quite literally, a “possible carcinogen.” That’s the actual name of the category . It’s either “Not classified,” “Possible Carcinogen,” “Probable Carcinogen,” or “Carcinogen.” Don’t like it? Bring it up with the WHO.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

    LONDON, June 29 (Reuters) - One of the world's most 
    common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a 
    possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health 
    body, according to two sources with knowledge of the 
    process, pitting it against the food industry and 
    regulators.
[…13 paragraphs later…]

    The IARC's decisions have also faced criticism for 
    sparking needless alarm over hard to avoid substances or 
    situations. It has four different levels of 
    classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, 
    possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels 
    are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than 
    how dangerous a substance is.
Using a term with a technical definition that isn't remotely close to the plain english meaning of the composing words, in a headline—and not explaining the gag in the first paragraph—is terrible reporting
Post reply on HN