Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by fellowniusmonk » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:13 AM UTC

chrstfer wrote: post #399

nostrademons wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I looked as well and couldn't find anything, limiting the search to this last weel pulled up this very thread, with all the dietary disinformation and active bad actors call me skeptical until at least google has a result.

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

#432

Post by elif » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:19 AM UTC

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.

Actually he was recommending stevia to chew with coca leaves at the time. As I said, this was high altitude climbing in Peru where that is a cultural norm.

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

#433

Post by barcode_feeder » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:19 AM UTC

gilgoomesh wrote: post #309

barcode_feeder wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the poster meant "fried/roasted potatoes" (boiled are not included). Most Maillard reaction cooking involves a risk of creating potential carcinogens like acrylamide. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118565-are-potatoes-no...

Which is what I figured and is a wholly disingenuous argument. Would love to see any research showing unseasoned boiled or baked potatoes being bad for you.

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

#434

Post by freshpots » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:20 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #422

freshpots wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for telling everyone that you are not even remotely involved in water treatment, especially for those that are. No matter the treatment method, absolutely purified water can encounter pathogens. The water treatment process uses various methods to make water safe for consumption but the distribution system requires a residual for any biological contaminants that can enter, or be harbored within, and low conc…

It was low-quality humor. I figured the midi-chlorian reference gave it away, due to the high density of Star Wars fandom on this site. Sorry to trigger you. I added a joke indicator, and I hope your blood pressure will decrease. https://www.starwars.com/news/so-what-the-heck-are-midi-chlo...

It was obvious. Don't waste everyone's time talking way outside your level of expertise and then trying to make jokes when you're called out. It's juvenile.

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

#435

Post by Nursie » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:21 AM UTC

elif wrote: post #335

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.

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 is nasty though!

I can’t stand the taste, I’d rather go without than have a product with stevia.

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

#436

Post by elif » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:24 AM UTC

malablaster wrote: post #370

elif wrote: post #335

Earlier 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.

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-...

That is a conditional recommendation pending the formation of actual guidelines.

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

#437

Post by tptacek » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:24 AM UTC

barcode_feeder wrote: post #433

gilgoomesh wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the poster meant "fried/roasted potatoes" (boiled are not included). Most Maillard reaction cooking involves a risk of creating potential carcinogens like acrylamide. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118565-are-potatoes-no...

Which is what I figured and is a wholly disingenuous argument. Would love to see any research showing unseasoned boiled or baked potatoes being bad for you.

Acrylamide has nothing at all to do with seasoning, and baking potatoes forms acrylamide (as will anything that browns a potato --- or that browns bread!).

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

#438

Post by buu700 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:27 AM UTC

malablaster wrote: post #370

elif wrote: post #335

Earlier 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.

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-...

It is, but IIRC for a nonsensical reason. They're lumping it in with a completely unrelated sweetener, erythritol, because some products on the market combine the two sweeteners. Using pure stevia is completely safe, as far as any research I've seen would indicate.

Liquid stevia is my go-to sweetener for most purposes, or if I'm baking I'll use a stevia-monk-inulin mix that measures 1:1 for sugar.

More recently, I've been using freeze dried miracle berries as a sweetener for low-sugar fruits. They essentially convert sour taste signals to sweet, which works great for strawberries, raspberries, cranberries, kiwi, passion fruit, and citrus. Also has a bit of an effect on blackberries and dragon fruit, and starfruit is on my list to try.

Related LPT: most of the fruits I eat are frozen with a few minutes of thawing at room temperature. Easier to store, easier to prep, and turns out to be pretty similar to Italian ice.

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

#439

Post by genki » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:31 AM UTC

annexrichmond wrote: post #357

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.

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... .

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2...

I think this is the source of the more recent concerns around sucralose.

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

#440

Post by elif » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:32 AM UTC

selcuka wrote: post #350

elif wrote: post #335

Earlier 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…

I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exogenous to any stage of the human body's development.

It would be a fallacy to suggest that one group or the other were unconditionally safer, but I find no dilemma in generalizing that the human body is more capable of processing plant-based substances. Just like I would generalize that consuming plant-based substances is healthier than consuming paint. Sure you can nit pick outliers, safe paint or oleander or whatever, but the heuristic is still of value.