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

141–150 of 584 posts

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

#141

Post by lotsofpulp »

carimura wrote: post #118
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diet Coke is undoubtedly America's biggest source of aspartame. Diet Coke has massive market share.

I had a computer science professor who drank so much diet coke that she had a wall of empty cans stacked up from floor to ceiling in her office. Even then, 20 years ago now, I was so grossed out with that level of artificial intake I wanted to grab her shoulders and shake her. But that wouldn't have helped my grade.

What is “artificial intake”? Would it have been preferable to “real” intake of sugar from regular Coke?

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

#142

Post by beders »

tekla wrote: post #74

> The "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with using mobile phones are "possibly cancer-causing" Wow. Easier to list out what doesn't cause cancer

Yeah, with billions of cell phone users humankind is practically dead now....

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

#143

Post by pliny »

zelos wrote: post #140
mjburgess wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There seems to be some suggestion that the sweetness triggers digestive system changes that could be harmful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/ It’s very vague though

1. There seems to be some suggestion that X

2. ???

3. In no world can I imagine ¬X

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

#144

Post by lfowles »

bamfly wrote: post #131
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's really weird that we've normalized consuming huge amounts of what's effectively an exceptionally-sweet dessert drink with most non-fancy restaurant or fast-food meals. Shit made a lot more sense when standard serving size was like 7oz and free soda refills weren't a common thing (so: the 1950s or whenever, for the former, and before some time in the '90s, for the latter). 20+oz glasses (and 32oz "medium-size" to…

The cups are usually 3/4 full of ice to start with, heh

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

#145

Post by taeric »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #133
taeric wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The average American consumes 38.87 gallons of soda year. 43% of Coke sales are Diet, I extrapolated that across the market, since Coke has a pretty dominant market share anyway. That's 16.7 gallons of diet soda per American, or 178 cans of soda. Multiply that by 150 calories/can, divide by 365, you get the 73 calories. As I mentioned before, that's a side effect of averaging across all Americans, a fraction of who d…

Makes sense; but I think it is odd to include folks that aren't relevant in the increase, though. Really, it is just weird to see a number that the only way to see an increase of 78 calories is to swap over into a half of a drink.

Granted, you work with what you have. :D

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

#146

Post by cm2012 »

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.

Aspartame is one of the must trustable things we eat. Very few foods have been studied as much as it has. Both quality and quantity of studies.

This is part of how the medical regulation leaders in every country are the most insanely cautious, neurotic people on earth. They all recommend not to eat steaks rare. Everything is a carcinogen. When they have such a low tolerance for danger, it just means everyone learns not to listen to their advice.

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

#147

Post by kyriakos »

neonsunset wrote: post #31

When I accidentally ingest food or drinks containing aspartame, it takes me out for at least 24h with a hellish migraine.

I suffer from migraines. Usually related to exposure to sun and sleep patterns, I found out that drinking diet coke during a day that I already experienced one of my other triggers, gives me a migraine almost immediately. Any other day it has no effect.

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

#148

Post by ravenstine »

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.

Purely anecdotal, but I used to drink insane amounts of aspartame in the form of Crystal Lite. I don't know what that's made of now, but decades ago it was made with aspartame, and I'd guzzle gallons upon gallons of that stuff because it could be mixed with tap water and was therefore cheaper than buying drinks in cans. Maybe in the long term it will cause my butt to fall off in my 60s, IDK, but if aspartame causes cancer, then it must be incredibly weak given the unglodly amounts I was consuming on a daily basis.

Today, I'd still avoid aspartame, but also sucralose, because it's unnecessary and may even cause insulin to be artificially raised in response to the sweetness. And I also just don't drink nearly as much as I used to now that I'm metabolically healthy.

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

#149

Post by PreachSoup »

jeron wrote: post #102
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.

effectively this is pick your poison: aspartame or sugar

Sucralose is another a widely used option. Cokecola uses aspartame, pepsicola uses sucralose. You can also easily buy it off the shelf

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

#150

Post by mandmandam »

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 is pretty bad. Glucose spikes cause a huge amount of stress in the body.

But yeah, Ireland's drinks are like that because of a 'sugar tax', and now it's quite hard to find fizzy drinks without gross sweeteners. Even brands that were quite high quality before are kinda rancid now.

Post reply on HN