Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

351–360 of 584 posts

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

#351
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a healthy alternative to sugar? If you have a one in five chance to live ten years longer because you don't develop cardiovascular issues from obesity, but one in a million develops cancer, I mean... It's going to depend on how this turns out exactly.

Nothing is safer than sugar if you're just talking about a few grams for your coffee.

Can of Coke has 39 grams of sugar. Diet cokes has 0.2 grams of aspartame.

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

#352
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.

By that logic, burning tobacco shouldn't be carcinogenic either.

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

#353
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.

I wouldn't propose apple seeds as a sweetener simply because they naturally grow inside apples.

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

#354

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.

I don't think it's a decent argument.

You are using the "I was at the train station and I was never mugged there, therefore mugging never happens at train stations" extrapolated argument.

People still think that smoking doesn't cause cancer, even when they are in the hospital because of not being able to breathe.

People still deny that climate change exists because of that one bought study in the 60s.

People still drink chlorified water and governments still are too lazy to use a biological cleaning process all over the world, even though it is proven that this increases cancer rates 2x as much.

As the devil's advocate I'd argue that people will only change their behaviour if a person within their personal influence radius dies because of it.

If they just read about it, they don't care.

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

#355

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…

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…

Sadly the marketing just works too well and now you're a conspiracy theorist for questioning the narrative.

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

#356
post #355

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…

Sadly the marketing just works too well and now you're a conspiracy theorist for questioning the narrative.

What marketing? Everyone I know who drinks diet soda myself included basically assumes we're getting cancer from it eventually. It's like the most common meme about it.

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

#357

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.

Source?

Perhaps this is outdated but this page says otherwise: “range of studies have found no evidence that sucralose causes cancer in humans”

[1] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d....

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

#358
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO recently conditionally recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control. Their stance is that we should be reducing sweetened food/beverage intake in general, rather than trying to find healthier ways to sweeten what we eat. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-...

If we shift the context just a little bit, everyone would ridicule this kind of abstinence-only approach.

"Everyone" might be a stretch.

Depending on the topic, I'm in camp abstinence.

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

#359
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is litres of soda the bar for Aspartame to be bad for someone? What about a few cans a week?

theyre just saying the stakes are high because there is both broad and regularly high consumption

Yes but a can of coke is ~200mg of aspertame. You would have to drink conservatively 30 cans a day to even get close to known dangerous levels.

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

#360
post #336

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.

> Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer. Do you have a citation for that? Google search is telling me the exact opposite, that it seems to reduce cancer growth.

That's not a good reason to eat something either - reducing cancer growth typically means something is poisonous.
Post reply on HN