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

391–400 of 584 posts

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

#391

Post by mohaine »

nostrademons wrote: post #319
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…

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…

Sweet'n'Low doesn't contain aspartame. It is Saccharin.

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

#392

Post by Frost1x »

nostrademons wrote: post #331
copperx wrote: post #329

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.

Would be interesting to see sugar linked to cancer too. Alcohol already has been (with a much stronger link than aspartame).

Sugar being a readily metabolized energy source is almost undoubtedly a cancer source because increase in energy results in increase in cellular production one way or another, which leads to higher risk of mutated cancerous cells, period. Hence the link of obesity to cancer as well.

The fact is that anything that increases the amount of you or the rate of you over time over the bare minimum needed for survival is an increased cancer risk... there are other causes like exposure to radiation that actually damage cells and so on as well.

Ultimately the question isn't if there's a link to cancer, it's how much something is increasing your risk of cancer relative to the alternatives. I suspect artificial sweeteners are in general for most less risk than consuming vast amounts of sugar, gaining lots of weight, becoming inactive, and increasing their cancer risk that way but who knows. Obviously if you ommit everything but consume the bare minimum sugar you need for survival you'll have a lower risk... good luck with that in modern society and diets

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

#393

Post by DontchaKnowit »

XorNot wrote: post #363
selcuka wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

yeah and it aint that bad for you until you extract the pure cocaine from it. the leaf is fine, I think

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

#394

Post by joezydeco »

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…

Dortitos is a tidal wave of glutamate. Not just the added MSG but the cheese extracts that add even more.

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

#396

Post by hedora »

malnourish wrote: post #62
toolz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything on that site that says anything other than nitrates weren't added. Where are you seeing that it's actually nitrate free?

Under "Dietary information" at the bottom of the page, it says "Nitrite-free, Gluten-free, Dairy-free,[sic]"

In the US, they are required by law to write nitrate free if they add celery salt, which is 100% nitrates.

That site lists “natural flavors” as an ingredient. I wonder if celery salt counts as a natural flavor in the UK.

This UK producer:

https://www.primalcut.co.uk/post/nitrate-free-bacon-bringing...

Contains the weasel words I pasted in below, which are verbatim what the US producers that use celery salt claim. Also, they don’t list the natural flavors. I’d bet they’re using celery salt, but that UK labeling laws don’t make them break it out as a separate ingredient:

> Primal Cut free-from naked bacon contains only fresh organic fruit sugars and nitrates present in the natural raw organic seasonings.

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

#397

Post by colordrops »

xpe wrote: post #390
colordrops wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get cancer from not getting enough sleep. There are plenty of innocuous substances that look fine chemically but disrupt sleep. It doesn't have to be directly mutagenic to cause cancer.

Common writing, even from well-regarded sources, is often unnecessarily vague wrt statistics. Claim: we would benefit by building a culture where basic probability ranges are expected and used. Idea: Serious publications could: A. Set basic guidelines for talking about probability estimates; something akin to what you see in government or business intelligence publications. For example, maps terms to ranges: “highly…

Maybe it's because I'm tired but I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Did you reply to the wrong comment?

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

#398

Post by bruce511 »

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

Its worth noting that we all die of something. When I see stats that rank cause of death, I'd love to see it adjusted for age.

It would be interesting if death rates had a cut-off. Don't tell me that 50% die of heart disease, rather exclude everyone over 70, then tell me percentages.

For most of my life the largest causes of death are accidents and suicide, but equally the age-group either the highest rate are over 75s.

Sure there ways to improve both quantity, and quality, of life. Smoking pretty obviously reduces both - its a good habit to quit, or not start. Chugging DDT is bad for you. But linking foods to longevity, where there is unconvincing evidence, isn't helpful to me.

Especially when that food has significant quality-of-life benefits.

Ultimately we all die of something. A death "saved" here, is a death "gained" there.

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

#399

Post by chrstfer »

nostrademons wrote: post #331
copperx wrote: post #329

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.

Would be interesting to see sugar linked to cancer too. Alcohol already has been (with a much stronger link than aspartame).

Pretty sure it's been conclusively shown that sugar overconsumption does cause cancer, but i think its more because of metabolic issues than directly causing a certain cell type to become cancerous.

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

#400

Post by tomcam »

freshpots wrote: post #384
cookiengineer wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"People still drink chlorified water and governments still are too lazy to use a biological cleaning process all over the world..." What biological cleaning process are you referring to? How does it prevent bacterial growth in the water distribution system?

Microscopic chloroforms. I’m pretty sure they’re related to midi-chlorians.

Post reply on HN