Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
361–370 of 584 posts
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You make a perfectly valid point, if something is used in food production that is only safe in trace quantities then a simple mistake on the assembly line could easily lead to larger quantities ending up in your food and suddenly you have cancer. I prefer having food that doesn't have any in itself cancer causing ingredients.
I don't think it's possible to do that or the food would obviously not be the product anymore. It's like saying you bought a red car but then found out it was secretly blue due to a production mistake.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Cocaine is a natural plant extract as well.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#364Earlier 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.
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 dr…
ok, but if 10,000 people go to the train station and 2 get mugged instead of 1 at the bus stop, is it not fair to say it's still pretty safe?
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#365Earlier 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…
I think it's disingenuous to say that cornmeal is just animal feed. Polenta has been a thing for a long time.
Mexico also consumes millions of tortillas every day made of exactly that.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the proof that drinking Diet Coke causes literally any health issue that is a direct relation to the aspartame itself specifically? Because I don't think that has ever existed because it's not actually harmful in this way... meanwhile your post reads like FUD.
Where's your proof that gravity exists and that we fully understand all of its effects? Science doesn't work that way. Meanwhile aspartame has been linked to many health problems.
"Linked" doesn't mean anything because correlation is not causation.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#367Reminder that bacon is already a known carcinogen for those worrying about artificial sweeteners but happily eating processed meats.
With bacon you know what you get, so you can dose it and take your risks. Aspartame has been sold to us as the healthy alternative to sugar. People literally use aspartame as an excuse to chug liters of soda every day.
The caffeine will get you before the aspartame if you actually chug liters a day so
you can't really do that in practice.
Source: My dad has a heart attack from drinking liters of diet soda every day.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#368Thats 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.
If you find everything is hard to trust, that likely just means you're not good at trusting things.
For instance, this is a known symptom of being Gen X.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#369Earlier 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…
"You don't need to read a book". Immediately cites a book. I don't disagree with your assertion on steps, to be clear, just that you aren't answering the actual question. How can you trust Pollan (I'm not saying you can't, just...that's the core question the OP was asking).
The idea is from a recipe book but the advice is just that quote and nothing more.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#370Earlier 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.
Stevia’s on the WHO list of artificial sweeteners they advise avoiding.
https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-...