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

171–180 of 584 posts

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

#171

Post by mrguyorama »

EA-3167 wrote: post #125
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."

This venn diagram is just a circle

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

#172

Post by tracker1 »

malnourish wrote: post #38
Fezzik wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that bacon itself is not the culprit of the possible (note — possible) carcinogen. The sodium nitrate that is often used as a preservative is. Nitrate-free bacon is easy to find though.

Nitrate-free (or, "no nitrates added") bacon still contains nitrates. About the same amount as standard bacon, and in some cases, more. https://www.americastestkitchen.com/cooksillustrated/how_tos...

Better stop eating celery or anything containing it if you're really concerned about nitrates.

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

#173

Post by EA-3167 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #171
EA-3167 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

This venn diagram is just a circle

And the label for that diagram is that "I'm not saying it's aliens" guy, but instead of 'aliens' he's saying, "CHEMICALS".

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

#174

Post by mrguyorama »

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.

Isn't this the same list that says Cellphones are a possible carcinogen despite mountains of evidence that they cause no cancer and also zero known mechanism of action?

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

#176

Post by saalweachter »

jjoonathan wrote: post #64
chimeracoder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we haven't figured out that something was bad after at least 500 years, then it probably isn't that bad. If we've been eating a food for less than 500 years, then it should be considered suspect. While I agree with the spirit of this, I'll point out that tobacco was brought to Europe over 500 years ago, and only recently discovered to be one of the most unhealthy products available. Not to mention that it was wi…

Tobacco is an all-natural plant product backed by longstanding tradition! How could it possibly be bad for your health? Ugh, if we hadn't banned them from advertising they would absolutely be using this angle and it would absolutely be working.

Isn't this essentially part of the not-quite-marketing for marijuana? It's not highly processed like tobacco cigarettes, it's just natural?

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

#177

Post by sampo »

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.

> The WHO’s cancer division (IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer)

IARC is only nominally under WHO. It is a weird French agency founded by some French activists and politicians in the 1960's.

They use a 5 class classification

    Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
    Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
    Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
    Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
    Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
But out of the 1042 chemicals and things they have classified, none are in Group 4. (Historically, there once was one single chemical in Group 4, but they have reclassified it.)

For IARC, everything is either at least possibly carcinogenic, or there is insufficient evidence (Group 3) to yet declare it carcinogenic.

Also:

"In 2019 IARC was accused of cooperation with "toxic tort law firms" who make profit of suing companies for compensation for alleged health issues based on IARC classification. IARC was accused from hiding conflicts of interest impacting a few invited experts, especially those related to large-scale cash flows from US law firms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea...

Many countries have perfectly capable chemicals agencies and food safety agencies, who are much more reliable than the IARC.

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

#178

Post by cassianoleal »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #95
cameldrv wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Myself the truly distasteful part is the use of neotame (a follow-on to aspartame) on animal feed, to get animals to eat feed that they normally would not; for instance, if the feed is rancid or otherwise in a condition/taste that normal animal instincts, would have the animal reject the food... True for human food as well. Maybe it’s not rancid, but food science can make terrible ingredients taste great. Take Dori…

I think it's disingenuous to say that cornmeal is just animal feed. Polenta has been a thing for a long time.

And it's awesome, especially fried!

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

#180

Post by SirMaster »

femboy wrote: post #15

I wish there was a switch in the mass production of products to contain neither sugar or sweeteners. But it feels like that is never going to happen.

There are plenty of products that have an unsweetened version, at least in my experience.
Post reply on HN