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

261–270 of 584 posts

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

#261

Post by DanBC »

tptacek wrote: post #252
DanBC wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IARC will release it when it's ready, and it'll be here: https://www.iarc.who.int/cards_page/iarc-publications/ (probably here: https://monographs.iarc.who.int/ ) Important to remember that IARC just talks about the quality of the evidence, and not the strength of the effect. If they know that something does cause cancer it'll go into group 1, even if it only causes an additional 1 case of cancer per 100,000 populati…

Per the article, they're planning on Group 2B.

Yes, and the rest of this thread shows a few people confused about the meaning of "possibly causes cancer" and how to interpret that wrt their own behaviour.

IARCs comms strategy isn't great, and science journalism isn't great either.

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

#262

Post by wkat4242 »

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…

Yeah I drink a lot of Pepsi Max. I just love it especially in summer. I've drank it for decades.

Would this make me worry a lot? Not really. I have worse health risks like being overweight, pfas etc.

The "if it was that dangerous we'd see the effect" is a pretty decent argument IMO considering it's been heavily used for almost 40 years.

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

#263

Post by cameronh90 »

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

They do: "Group 4: probably not carcinogenic"

The list is empty...

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

#264

Post by wkat4242 »

tptacek wrote: post #236
TheBlight wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

There's not a terribly high amount of caffeine in it anyway compared to coffee.

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

#265

Post by nonethewiser »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #246
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.

Mayo is processed garbage?? Please explain. It’s whipped egg with lemon and oil, maybe some salt.

Helmans also uses Calcium Disodium EDTA for shelf life.

Im not saying its bad, or being processed is bad, but its manufactured at scale with additional ingredients to make it shelf stable. Its not the same thing you make at home. Frankly I think thats fine.

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

#266

Post by maxk42 »

fatfingerd wrote: post #231
hombre_fatal wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bioavailability isn't the while story: some foods can be too bioavailable (and not great for you when consuming too much) such as sugars which can cause your body to form inappropriate hormonal signals and disrupt normal satiety. (Looking at you, fructose!) Additionally, there are literally thousands of antinutrients, toxins, carcinogens, and endocrine disruptors that simply aren't accounted for in normal nutritional analyses.

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

#267

Post by poisonarena »

cameldrv wrote: post #66
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... True for human food as well. Maybe it’s not rancid, but food science can make terrible ingredients taste great. Take Dori…

I eat tortilla chips of all kinds outside of the dorito sphere, dont need anything besides a little salt, let alone engineered powders

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

#269

Post by tap-snap-or-nap »

sgbeal wrote: post #2

The weird thing about this is that i stopped drinking Diet Coke, specifically because of aspartame, after reading this same thing in 1996 or perhaps early 97. WHO's decision to wait nearly 30 years before backing that just makes them look impotent.

Government bodies took a lot more responsibility before the 90's after 90's they rather fund the private sector than be blamed for being authoritarian and monopolistic.

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

#270

Post by nonethewiser »

kergonath wrote: post #191
fluidcruft wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that aspartame in food has a different physical form that prevents it from entering the body?

For example. I cannot provide any insight because I don’t with in that field, but it would not be necessarily surprising that e.g. inhaled powders could have different effects than ingested compounds diluted in something else. Quantity would matter a lot as well.

Its OK to drink kool aide but not snort it.
Post reply on HN