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

231–240 of 584 posts

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

#231

Post by fatfingerd »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #215
xormapmap wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t see how that’s the case except for a fear of “processing”. I plug two slices of commercial whole wheat store bought bread into Cronometer and it has an impressive mineral breakdown and 14% of the day's nutrient needs.

Lack of bioavailability analysis and links between processed meat and cancer are fears... of the established scientific community.

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

#232

Post by iLoveOncall »

shrubble wrote: post #54

Donald 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...

What's the difference between that and humans eating a pizza but not eating the raw ingredients of a pizza? If it's not inedible anymore I don't see the issue...

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

#233

Post by tptacek »

The challenge you have here is that aspartame isn't just one of most widely studied substances in the food chain, but that it's also one of the most widely and vigorously consumed. People drink a lot of diet soda; a lot of people drink it to the exclusion of all other liquids. So it's going to be tricky to get the epidemiology to match up with the claim here: if aspartame is meaningfully carcinogenic (meaning: more than by the trace amounts all sorts of other things in the food supply are, from small quantities of mold due to spoilage to acrylamide forming in almost anything we cook), we'd expect to see a pretty obvious effect in case rates.

The article mentions a French study showing a "slight" increase, over 100,000 pts, in an observational study that used self-reporting to control for other risk factors. I can't find it; has anyone else?

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

#234

Post by TheBlight »

tptacek wrote: post #233

The challenge you have here is that aspartame isn't just one of most widely studied substances in the food chain, but that it's also one of the most widely and vigorously consumed. People drink a lot of diet soda; a lot of people drink it to the exclusion of all other liquids. So it's going to be tricky to get the epidemiology to match up with the claim here: if aspartame is meaningfully carcinogenic (meaning: more t…

[flagged]

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

#235

Post by tptacek »

carimura wrote: post #110
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.

agreed, it's really hard with lobbyists, captured agencies, flawed studies, social media noise, political narratives, etc etc etc. We try our best to just go back to first principles: as close to the food source as possible, as few added ingredients as possible, organic, etc.

Ahh, the naturalist fallacy. But the natural substitutes for artificial sweeteners are markedly worse for you, and more primitive, less industrial cooking and food preparation techniques often can be as well.

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

#236

Post by tptacek »

TheBlight wrote: post #234
tptacek wrote: post #233

The challenge you have here is that aspartame isn't just one of most widely studied substances in the food chain, but that it's also one of the most widely and vigorously consumed. People drink a lot of diet soda; a lot of people drink it to the exclusion of all other liquids. So it's going to be tricky to get the epidemiology to match up with the claim here: if aspartame is meaningfully carcinogenic (meaning: more t…

[flagged]

I don't consume caffeine, but Dave Arnold of the (unimpeachable) Cooking Issues podcast has a whole spiel about how Diet Coke drinkers use it as a primary source of hydration.

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

#237

Post by gumby »

A bit of background (from an unlikely source). The Tl;DR:

  \* Group 1: carcinogenic (this includes cigarettes, the HPV viruses that cause cervical cancer, and ionizing radiation)

  \* Group 2A: probably carcinogenic (this includes red meat, hot beverages, and working as a hairdresser)

  \* Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic (this is the group aspartame reportedly may end up in)

  \* Group 3: not classifiable

  \* Group 4: probably not carcinogenic (this list contains zero items; a chemical called caprolactam was previously on it, but was moved to group 3)

  These are not designations of cancer *risk*, but of *the chance that there is a detectable link of some kind*.
https://lifehacker.com/aspartames-possible-carcinogen-design...

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

#238

Post by hombre_fatal »

gnulinux wrote: post #4
lkuty wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We got to stay actively informed to be eating good stuff way sooner than the official position of the government about various foods. There are so much bad stuff in the typical supermarket. One way is reading the "right" books.

How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks also think they're reading the right sources.

Consider a classic like Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Eating by Walter Willett. All evidence-based. No fad crap you usually get in this space. You won't be surprised by any of the advice, but it's nice to see it all collated in one place.

https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/eat-drink-and-be-healt...

Here's a two hour interview with the author if you prefer the format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx2JUtngxkw

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

#239

Post by solardev »

cassianoleal wrote: post #178
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #95

Earlier 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.

And it's awesome, especially fried!

Who needs food science when you've got hot liquid fat?

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

#240

Post by hombre_fatal »

rcme wrote: post #10
gnulinux wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks also think they're reading the right sources.

I disagree with the GP that staying informed about nutrition can be done with books. There is very little generally accepted science when it comes to nutrition. I try to use the "test of time" approach. 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.

That doesn't mean those foods optimize for longevity.

Why not just look at the balance of evidence for various dietary patterns today?

Post reply on HN