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

521–530 of 584 posts

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

#521

Post by rootusrootus »

akiselev wrote: post #310
ramblenode wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an example of the good garbage that would otherwise be wasted? It seems like nutrient deficient junk food is the main beneficiary of these appetizing agents. Globally, we produce a huge surplus of calories but a deficit of micronutrients, fruits, and vegetables. The appetizing agents are mostly convincing people to eat more of the former, beyond what they need.

> What is an example of the good garbage that would otherwise be wasted? It seems like nutrient deficient junk food is the main beneficiary of these appetizing agents. Most of a cow, honestly. From a 1,300 lbs steer you'll get something like 600-650 pounds of usable meat (maybe a little more, depending on the breed). About a third of that resulting meat will be ground meat that'll best be used in burgers, sausages, h…

> burgers, sausages, hotdogs, and stuff like vienna sausages - which I would consider junk food

Heretic!

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

#522

Post by rootusrootus »

lexandstuff wrote: post #296
nonethewiser wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doritos really are an amazing case. They are tortilla chips. It took me so long to realize this because that delicious dust is so transformational. It it’s literally a tortilla chip underneath that salt, msg, and spices. For the longest time I assumed it was some other novel type of chip.

Can't you buy plain Doritos where you live? In Australia, you can buy "Original Salted" Doritos, which is just oil, corn and salt: regular old Tortilla chips.

Generally not, at least in the US. When we buy plain tortilla chips here, it's usually Mexican. Given the lack of a Mexico on the border of Australia, I can understand why you might not get the same variety of tortilla chips.

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

#523

Post by rootusrootus »

joezydeco wrote: post #394
cameldrv wrote: post #66

Earlier 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…

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

MSG is right up there with aspartame of vilified ingredients with zero evidence to back up the claims. My own mother claims to get terrible headaches from MSG, but she loves tomatoes. And nuts. And peas. And mushrooms. Turns out the headaches are dependent on knowing the food has MSG.

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

#524

Post by rootusrootus »

shrubble wrote: post #279
iLoveOncall wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that you don't find it distasteful that we add sweeteners to raw cocoa powder to make chocolate edible for humans, so what's distasteful in adding sweeteners to animal feed to make it edible for animals?

People do however eat raw cocoa. And rancid or spoiled food is quite different from 'bitter' food.

> People do however eat raw cocoa

That's quite rare. My kid did it once, thinking it was basically chocolate. I really wish I had taken a picture.

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

#525

Post by penneallagricia »

copperx wrote: post #379
fbdab103 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You listed two isolated facts. You forgot to make a point.

This was downvoted but Is correct, relative amounts mean nothing.

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

#526

Post by buu700 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #484
elif wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have no reason to believe that stevia increases the risk of cancer, but I'm afraid that arguing it is likely to be safe because it "coevolved" with humans is basically falling into the naturalistic fallacy with extra steps. For stevia to be arguably safer due coevolution with humans, the following would need to be true: 1. There is a selective pressure for stevia to not increase the risk of cancer in humans. 2. The…

Selective pressure doesn't need to be perfectly foolproof to be valid.

Humans are pretty observant, and have decent odds of noticing over time when particular things correlate with health problems. A plant known to cause health problems is less likely to become and remain a dietary staple. A plant that isn't a dietary staple misses out on a wealth of opportunity for propagation.

I think you're also hyperfocusing on the issue of evolution. The point isn't that stevia is a plant which merely exists, but rather its longevity in human culture[0].

What you're saying makes sense for random plants picked up in the woods; less so for plants that have been consumed by humans since antiquity. By the same logic, there would be no a priori difference in risk profile between vegetables and random research chemicals.

0: https://www.britannica.com/plant/stevia-plant#ref350513

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

#527

Post by iLoveOncall »

rootusrootus wrote: post #524
shrubble wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do however eat raw cocoa. And rancid or spoiled food is quite different from 'bitter' food.

> People do however eat raw cocoa That's quite rare. My kid did it once, thinking it was basically chocolate. I really wish I had taken a picture.

I got a video for you: https://youtu.be/AlyRGjvp8AY

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

#528

Post by grvdrm »

tptacek wrote: post #221
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: post #21

Reminder that bacon is already a known carcinogen for those worrying about artificial sweeteners but happily eating processed meats.

Why stop with nitrates and nitrites? Acrylamide is a known human carcinogen, and occurs in a huge variety of cooking processes (including baking, frying, and grilling). If you eat potatoes, you're almost certainly putting yourself at more risk than aspartame is: we've got epidemiology and mechanism of action to back up the potato risk.

Serious question: do you have kids and if so, what do you feed them if you avoid acrylamide? I’m constantly looking for alternatives for my kids and it feels like an endless game of whack-a-mole such that they do, sometimes anyways, eat the processed things because I can’t eradicate the junk from everything.

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

#529

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#530

Post by Dylan16807 »

buu700 wrote: post #526
Mordisquitos wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no reason to believe that stevia increases the risk of cancer, but I'm afraid that arguing it is likely to be safe because it "coevolved" with humans is basically falling into the naturalistic fallacy with extra steps. For stevia to be arguably safer due coevolution with humans, the following would need to be true: 1. There is a selective pressure for stevia to not increase the risk of cancer in humans. 2. The…

Selective pressure doesn't need to be perfectly foolproof to be valid. Humans are pretty observant, and have decent odds of noticing over time when particular things correlate with health problems. A plant known to cause health problems is less likely to become and remain a dietary staple. A plant that isn't a dietary staple misses out on a wealth of opportunity for propagation. I think you're also hyperfocusing on t…

A small long-term increase in cancer risk is really hard to notice.

And lots of cultivated plants have downsides.

> By the same logic, there would be no a priori difference in risk profile between vegetables and random research chemicals.

No, that's a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that "random research chemicals" should be considered safe. And extracting random chemicals out of plants would also be dangerous!

Post reply on HN