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

541–550 of 584 posts

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

#541

Post by valval »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #531
valval wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It has the health disadvantages of sugar, because it contains sugar (fructose). Don't be fooled by sugar in a different form.

Evidence [0][1] suggests that the fructose in honey acts differently from fructose in table sugar, and seems to have some unexplained metabolic benefits.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/

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

#542

Post by cogman10 »

berniedurfee wrote: post #495
cogman10 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should. There are plenty of chemicals that you regularly consume which, in high dosages, are fatal but are required at low dosages. Too much calcium will causes osteopetrosis (too little does as well). Too much vitamin K causes liver damage Too much vitamin B1 causes hypertension Plenty of stuff is dangerous at high levels and safe at low levels. Our kidneys and liver exist to filter and eliminate excess.

Plug for ChubbyEmu on YouTube for more examples!

Pretty fun watch. Thanks for sharing.

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

#543

Post by CyberDildonics »

valval wrote: post #541
CyberDildonics wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has the health disadvantages of sugar, because it contains sugar (fructose). Don't be fooled by sugar in a different form.

Evidence [0][1] suggests that the fructose in honey acts differently from fructose in table sugar, and seems to have some unexplained metabolic benefits. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12421854/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/

Your first study is testing three different diets only specifically for high triglycerides and the second doesn't mention honey.

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

#544

Post by 93po »

sacnoradhq wrote: post #426
93po wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breathing air in any city.

That's why I have a BlueAir air filter running continuously that spits out 0 ppm air and swapped my A/C's filters for the highest MERV ones available.

I had to remove the ionizer from my blueair, ionizers plus terpenes (what essential oils are made of, and in virtually all cleaning products) creates formaldehyde, which I'm allergic to, and is linked to cancer and kids developing asthma.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/...

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

#545

Post by tptacek »

kelipso wrote: post #535
tptacek wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you a Google search away from seeing that this is the opposite of the truth? I'm asking because I didn't look very hard, but I'm on IARC's dataviz site right now looking at a graph of cancer rates --- all causes excluding non-melanoma skin cancer --- sharply down since the '50s (no surprise, tobacco), and also down since the 1990s. You can find cancer sites that break that trend, like bladder cancer, but (for…

Do you want to post that link if you're on the site? I'm guessing you're looking at cancer mortality rates rather than cancer diagnosis rates. Because while the former has decreased since 1950 due to improvements in treatment, I'm pretty sure the latter has risen since 1950.

I closed the tab since last night, but if you Google "IARC dataviz" you're probably going to get it as the first Google search result. It's a site IARC runs itself, with historical data visualizations.

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

#546

Post by quags »

berniedurfee wrote: post #493
mohaine wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wasn’t saccharine one of the first to be shown to be a likely carcinogen?

I remember warnings in the 90s on labels that saccharine causes cancer in high doses in lab mice on gum - over time ace k / Splenda and aspartame were used instead.

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

#547

Post by quags »

systemvoltage wrote: post #424
Spivak wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What marketing? Everyone I know who drinks diet soda myself included basically assumes we're getting cancer from it eventually. It's like the most common meme about it.

??? I’m hearing this first. Know a lot of people who drink Diet Coke.

I drink diet soda sometimes and have a strong idea it is unhealthy so I limit intake. I switched from full sugar soda which has its own risks. I tend to now drink flavored selzter with out sweeteners although there is a question what natural flavors may be. I also imagine the same risks apply to hot dogs and processed lunch meats that diet soda has.

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

#548

Post by delian66 »

tracker1 wrote: post #533
nostrademons wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sucralose saw a recent study on effects of DNA that are more compelling than Aspartame. Acesulfame-K messes with pancrease and insulin signalling, Stevia has other detractors iirc... etc. etc. In the end, it's all a mixed bag, and who knows if it's actually better or worse than consuming more than 25-40mg of fructose or alcohol in a day. There are massive corporate interests in all directions with deep revolving door…

Why 250+ years?

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

#549

Post by nielsbot »

rootusrootus wrote: post #520
nielsbot wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair point!

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

#550

Post by lexandstuff »

fbdab103 wrote: post #349
lexandstuff wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there price parity vs flavored Doritos?

Usually, exactly the same price. Though the plain ones are often on special, as I guess they're less popular.
Post reply on HN