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

511–520 of 584 posts

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

#511

Post by KMag »

elif wrote: post #440
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…

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 li…

> 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.

An optimal organism doesn't imply an optimal environment.

  fitness(org, food) = -2 org^2 + org * food + 7
If evolution had optimized fitness by adjusting "org" while keeping "food" constant, that wouldn't imply holding "org" constant and changing "food" wouldn't yield improvement.

Evolution doesn't optimize the environment for the organism. Evolution performs stochastic gradient descent, improving the organism for the environment, which can easily get stuck at global optima. More importantly, it improves the organism for the environment/food/etc. The idea that the food is optimal for the organism gets the improvement mechanism backward.

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

#512

Post by tptacek »

2devnull wrote: post #507
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…

Cancer can take 50 years to develop. Aspartame is from the 80s, so maybe we’d only now be noticing the beginning of the wave of cancers, assuming our ability to notice is not limited, which I think the pandemic should make you wonder about. And how many other things started in the 80s. Cigarettes were relatively easy to notice, but even great minds like Fischer couldn’t see it. A 50 year lag makes a lot of things har…

We're not noticing a wave of new cancers; for most cancers, broadly including those implicated by ingesting Diet Coke, we're seeing decreases; where we're seeing increases, they don't track country-by-country consumption patterns for aspartame.

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

#513

Post by valval »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #504
valval wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why use artificial sweeteners in the first place? Honey is a great sweetener.

Honey is sweet because it has sugar in it, the same reason people would be using an artificial sweetener in the first place.

Sure, it just doesn’t have the health disadvantages of the alternatives. It might even be good for you.

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

#514

Post by valval »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #465
valval wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why use artificial sweeteners in the first place? Honey is a great sweetener.

Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.

Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely?

Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?

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

#515

Post by Broken_Hippo »

valval wrote: post #514
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.

Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?

Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave.

I mean, good luck avoiding them and liking chewing gum. Or good luck if you are diabetic and want a soda from time to time.

Folks on keto diets avoid a lot of carbs, and diabetics tend to watch them. Artificial sweeteners help folks do this. Honey has similar woes to actual sugar, and if you are using the artificial stuff to avoid the effects of real sugar, honey is no solution.

Choosing between the two - artificial or "natural" - is really just a question of risk. You aren't in the position of considering that a soda might kill you. Or trying to explain your diabetic grandmother with memory problems that she simply can't have soda at all: I'm not sure giving an artificially sweetened drink really is going to be what puts them in an early grave.

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

#516

Post by tptacek »

pleb_nz wrote: post #478
tptacek wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what everybody else is saying, I'll add that by the US definition, that's not bacon; it's back bacon, which is a loin cut, radically different than American bacon, which I believe you lot call "streaky bacon".

Being a global community, would we assume bacon means all types of bacon cut? I have been but maybe I've been wrong. Surely we're not just referring to streaky bacon or American bacon

Yes, we would assume here that bacon means pork belly bacon. The reason nitrates are such a big deal with American bacon is that they're an important part of the flavor of the bacon (nitrates create "hammy" flavor). If there's genuinely un-cured pork loin "bacon" in Germany or New Zealand or whatever, that's great, but it's a less interesting claim than that there's real nitrate/nitrite-free American bacon (I don't believe there is).

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

#517

Post by Matumio »

copperx wrote: post #378
cheekibreeki2 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Using artificial sweeteners for coffee is completely unnecessary, unless you're drinking a lot. The amount of calories in two teaspoons of sugar is minuscule.

Two teaspoons is already one sixth of the WHO recommended daily sugar intake, and that was just the coffee. And WHO claims there are additional health benefits expected if you can do half of what they recommend.

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

#518

Post by 542354234235 »

valval wrote: post #514
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.

Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?

>Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely?

People aren't literally eating zero carbs, they are minimizing their carb intake for various reasons (like being diabetic). With almost any variety in your diet, you are getting enough carbs to function. People "avoid carbs" because with our modern world of abundance, it is too easy to over consume carbs. If you are diabetic, honey is more likely to put you in an early grave than artificial sweeteners.

>Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?

Just because something is "artificial" doesn't mean bad. And rarely is one thing universally "better". it depends on the situation. Again, a diabetic looking for a soda-like drink is looking for different things than a vegan looking for dessert recipes.

>Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave.

Source?

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

#519

Post by rootusrootus »

nonethewiser wrote: post #265
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mayo is processed garbage?? Please explain. It’s whipped egg with lemon and oil, maybe some salt.

Helmans also uses Calcium Disodium EDTA for shelf life. Im not saying its bad, or being processed is bad, but its manufactured at scale with additional ingredients to make it shelf stable. Its not the same thing you make at home. Frankly I think thats fine.

> Helmans also uses Calcium Disodium EDTA for shelf life.

Maybe it has helped remove built up lead from long term exposure before unleaded gasoline was mandated.

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

#520

Post by rootusrootus »

nielsbot wrote: post #194
IshKebab wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's like saying "sandwiches are just ground up wheat, plus a ton of delicious filling to make them taste good"

Not quite--I assume sandwich fillings are food. Doritos are coated w flavor powder.

> flavor powder

Which seems to qualify as food, as well. Cheese, whey, milk, buttermilk, onion powder, MSG, etc. Nothing too scary on the list.

Post reply on HN