> The "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with using mobile phones are "possibly cancer-causing" Wow. Easier to list out what doesn't cause cancer
Did you know that sunlight causes cancer?
Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
201–210 of 584 posts
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#202Donald Rumsfeld was famously influential in getting aspartame's approval ; however more of the story behind this can be found here: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846759/Nill,_As... In 1984 the year after aspartame's approval for soft drinks, the company that held the exclusive patent on it, sold $600 million worth (1984 dollars) of it. Myself the truly distasteful part is the use of neotame (a follow-o…
> 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…
Cornmeal is just corn flour but with courser grinding? But glutamate and stuff, sure. Doritos have the same "fake" feel as Pringles according to my taste.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#203Thats 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.
Aspartame is not a sugar alcohol like the other artificial sweeteners that do cause diarrhea due to incomplete digestion.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#204Earlier 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.
Why? Why does it matter to you?
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#205Literally read halfway down the article before they say that "working overnight" is also in the "probably carcinogenic" category and that the organization is known for publishing confusing results that cause panic. FFS
Actually "working overnight" is "probably carcinogenic" which is a higher evidentiary standard than Aspartame which is "possibly carcinogenic".
Basically these WHO cancer guidelines are entirely useless in terms of public health and have probably done as much harm as Prop 65 has in California.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can start here: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... Diet sodas with aspartame contain a warning for this reason. Now of course, most of us do not have this condition. But how do we know if it is safe? I decided 20+ years ago that artificial sweeteners were a crutch with no nutritional value and unknown risks, so I stopped consuming them.
Considering that sugar and excess consumption of carbohydrates is the number 1 health problem around the world, is it possible that the risks of low calorie sweeteners are not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of low calorie sweeteners?
I was just explaining this to my wife while we've been on keto. Yes, artificial sweeteners are bad, let's try to avoid them if possible, but if consuming some aspartame in jello helps us stay on keto and lose belly fat, then the benefits outweigh the risk.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under "Dietary information" at the bottom of the page, it says "Nitrite-free, Gluten-free, Dairy-free,[sic]"
I wouldn't be surprised if that's misleading considering the other article was suggesting nitrite precursors are usually what's in the food later to be turned into nitrite, but I'd love to be wrong. You could simply measure the levels of nitrite before any exists and the end product might still have just as much.
The one article is talking about celery juice being stealth nitrates. It's not something that is in the pork itself.
The only candidate would be natural flavors, and I sort of doubt that they would get away with that.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#208I 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.
Why would there be? Sugar is good. Products with sugar are good. Self control is also good. People can like products with sugar and exercise self control, so there will always be a demand for mass produced products with sugar, and that's a good thing.
We have to stop putting sugar in dumb things first, like ketchup and bacon. We have to get a grip.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's disingenuous to say that cornmeal is just animal feed. Polenta has been a thing for a long time.
Yeah that's like saying "sandwiches are just ground up wheat, plus a ton of delicious filling to make them taste good"
Most bread you get from a supermarket (even outside the US) is highly processed garbage, as are many common sandwich fillings (mayo, salami, margarine). The typical sandwich is probably up there with many of the other least healthy things you could eat, so yeah, ground up wheat with filling to make it taste good is probably fair.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#210Earlier 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...
I cute and smoke my own bacon. I do not use nitrite. Also in my country organic bacon has zero nitrate in it.