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

291–300 of 584 posts

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

#291

Post by grecy »

wkat4242 wrote: post #262
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.

Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on

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

#292

Post by [deleted] »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #245
fatfingerd wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure. This thread is talking about bread. Processed wheat products like bread and seitan are nutrient dense foods usually caught in the social media meme diet crossfire.

[deleted]

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

#293

Post by barcode_feeder »

tptacek wrote: post #221
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: post #21

Reminder that bacon is already a known carcinogen for those worrying about artificial sweeteners but happily eating processed meats.

Why stop with nitrates and nitrites? Acrylamide is a known human carcinogen, and occurs in a huge variety of cooking processes (including baking, frying, and grilling). If you eat potatoes, you're almost certainly putting yourself at more risk than aspartame is: we've got epidemiology and mechanism of action to back up the potato risk.

What's the danger with potatoes? Can you point me towards a study or something?

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

#294

Post by stopping »

grecy wrote: post #291
wkat4242 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on

Citation?

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

#295

Post by hunson_abadeer »

grecy wrote: post #291
wkat4242 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on

Something is bound to get ya. As we get better at managing other diseases and risks, cancer - which is seldom truly curable - gets a larger share.

The progress on other fronts really is staggering. Forget pre-industrial times: global child mortality is half of what it was in the 1980s. The same is true for vehicle deaths in the US.

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

#296

Post by lexandstuff »

nonethewiser wrote: post #254
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…

Doritos really are an amazing case. They are tortilla chips. It took me so long to realize this because that delicious dust is so transformational. It it’s literally a tortilla chip underneath that salt, msg, and spices. For the longest time I assumed it was some other novel type of chip.

Can't you buy plain Doritos where you live? In Australia, you can buy "Original Salted" Doritos, which is just oil, corn and salt: regular old Tortilla chips.

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

#297

Post by systemvoltage »

arbitrage wrote: post #9
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.

Personally I'm taking the WHO announcement as an implicit signal that they are no longer so tightly controlled/held captive by corporate interests as they have been for the past ... three, four decades? Better late than never, I guess.

Why? I don’t understand. You can imagine a scenario where executives at WHO have shorted the CocaCola stock or bought Aspartame alternatives stock? Many such scenarios possible.

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

#298

Post by willis936 »

grecy wrote: post #291
wkat4242 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cancer rates are rising rapidly. Soon 50% of people will have cancer. I’d say something is going on

Does this correlate with life expectancy?

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

#299

Post by NovaDudely »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #29
adriand wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to read a book. I think you can get away with three steps: 1) This maxim from Michael Pollan: "Eat food [1]. Mostly plants. Not too much." (I personally follow an adjusted version of this: "Eat food. Only plants. Not too much.") 2) Review daily nutrient requirements to ensure your diet is providing you with adequate macro (protein, carbs, fat) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals). 3) A few months af…

And if you eat too many of the wrong plants you get kidney stones etc. etc. Emphasizing variety is very important. It's almost like a second job to keep up with what you _should_ do. Reviewing daily nutrients is way too much effort for most folks.

It is like jumping into a TV series that has 10 seasons or a podcast that has 300 back episodes, it seems daunting at first but taken one step at a time it can become very manageable to learn what to be done and how to manage it.

It isn't so much managing daily nutrients but ensuring there is a decent variety of nutrients available at home. There is a lot of trial and error but long term it works out well. And like you said, variety is key!

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

#300

Post by nomel »

maxk42 wrote: post #273
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?

Sand is not a different physical form than that which causes cancer. (See: toxic silicosis) Often it's dosage that leads to concern. A typical walk on the beach will not result in cancer from sand exposure.

> Sand is not a different physical form than that which causes cancer.

This is incorrect. Sand is larger, rounded, particles. Toxic silicosis is caused by small (like 10um) particles. The physical form is what makes it possible to inhale one and walk on the other.

The chemical form is identical.

Post reply on HN