Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

341–350 of 584 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not from Doritos.

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

#342
post #169
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Aspartame does not exist in a vacuum, however. The sugar industry is arguably bigger, more powerful, and has even more budget to fund motivated research. I don’t trust Big Aspartame to prove to is that it is safe, but I put my full faith in Big Sugar to tell us if something is wrong with Aspartame.

I'm not sure that I even beleive in "Big Aspartame". The patents have expired, so there are dozens of companies who manufacture it globally. I doubt that they all meet at their global secret cabal hideout to align their plans to extinguish all research.

How much longer are the sugar patents still in effect that allow Big Sugar to exist?

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

#343
post #77
post #72

That stuff gives me migraines. I can't even chew most gum without a headache because it's full of it.

Isn't it mostly Xylitol in chewing gum?

I just checked the gum in my backpack. Both Trident and Mentos gum have xylitol, sorbitol, acesulfame K, mannitol and sucralose. Mentos gum also has aspartame and maltitol syrup in addition to the others.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From NIH's National Cancer institute: * Approximately 39.5% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2015–2017 data). This is no where near 50% of people "having cancer". * The rate of new cases of cancer (cancer incidence) is 442.4 per 100,000 men and women per year (based on 2013–2017 cases). (.442%) * The cancer death rate (cancer mortality) is 158.3 per 100,000…

40% is definitely near 50%

"will have" infers a future present though. 40% will have at some point in their life is substantively different than 50% having at a single moment in time

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

#346
post #291

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

We're better at seeing cancer now. Maybe people used to get small cancers that just went away. Which sounds insane I know! But you can be perfectly health, get a body scan, find a lump of something doing nothing and then you're on the big C train all of a sudden.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading back in the early 90s a number of studies that showed elevated risks of certain brain cancers from aspartame. The evidence was pretty strong - it wasn't conclusive (hence the "possibly" qualifier in this label), but it was enough that I was personally convinced. The link between aspartame and cancer is much stronger than the one between cyclamate (banned in 1970 but legal in the EU) and cancer. My…

Sucralose (Splenda) has been linked to cancer quite convincingly last week. It's the only artificial sweetener that I used, and now there are no options except sugar alcohols. Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer.

What about Stevia?

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

#348
The most obvious substitute for aspartame is sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. In liquid form, and the quantities that people drink soda, the health risks are immense. Cardiovascular decease kills a comparable amount of people as cancer overall, from all sources. For aspartame to end up a net negative, it’d have to be massively carcinogenic.

Certainly its better to replace Diet Coke with water, all else equal, but the effort in changing habits is much higher. There is a ton of preventable decease due to bad diet and lack of exercise, despite well known causes. So why is that?

Health discussions have this psychological bias where people think “be more like me” is effective (don’t do drugs, just go out and meet people, exercise more, just stop smoking). The fact that people think like this, despite the war on drugs disaster, is madness. Especially when the solution is so simple: throw the moralism away and focus solely on harm reduction – also known as “whatever works”. Just good old empiricism.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there price parity vs flavored Doritos?

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

#350
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sucralose (Splenda) has been linked to cancer quite convincingly last week. It's the only artificial sweetener that I used, and now there are no options except sugar alcohols. Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer.

My Peruvian climbing guide turned me onto stevia which doesn't fall into any of your categories. It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity.

> It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity.

This sounds like the naturalistic fallacy [1]. A naturally occurring substance is not automatically less carcinogen, or harmful, than a manufactured one. Coffee is associated with elevated risk for bladder cancer. Cycad trees are known to be highly carcinogenic. Mycotoxins (mold) are toxic and carcinogenic. Aflatoxin from peanuts is found to be carcinogenic.

I'm not saying that stevia is not safe, but safety has nothing to do with being natural or not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Post reply on HN