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

571–580 of 584 posts

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

#571

Post by Shorel »

favorited wrote: post #284
Aachen wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it a healthy alternative to sugar? If you have a one in five chance to live ten years longer because you don't develop cardiovascular issues from obesity, but one in a million develops cancer, I mean... It's going to depend on how this turns out exactly.

The WHO recently conditionally recommended against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control. Their stance is that we should be reducing sweetened food/beverage intake in general, rather than trying to find healthier ways to sweeten what we eat. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-...

I am personally trying to achieve that.

Liquid chocolate, the kind we drink as a hot beverage in Central and South America, was difficult for me to get used to without any sweet taste. Nowadays I prefer it that way. Coffee is a bit more difficult for me.

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

#572

Post by cykros »

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 suspect it's more that aspartame indirectly causes cancer, which is why it doesn't look, walk, or quack like a duck, but it DOES have a habit of feeding the ducks. What I mean by that is that candida LOVES aspartame, and candida, a fungus that lives in the human gut and feeds on sugars, alcohols, preservatives, and a few other things Americans in particular eat a ton of, HAS been seen to cause cancer. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24963692/

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

#573

Post by xpe »

dsign wrote: post #418
xpe wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I work with readers and editors sometimes. They get swollen and puffy when they see numbers, though they will swallow their pain if it’s a scientific article. Otherwise they will complain loudly and the editors will use their red pens a lot. With that said, I consider your idea has merit and should be implemented.

Thanks for sharing. To these folks I would ask: what about numbers is problematic? To the degree that it has to be with current reader perceptions, I understand and empathize.

But in terms of where we want to go, we can do better. Great writers care about precision, and wisely chosen numbers and ranges are able to provide that. It may be appropriate to situate them in footnotes or endnotes, depending on the context. But the numbers matter.

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

#574

Post by TheBlight »

tptacek wrote: post #249
nonethewiser wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your point? This is a very low effort, meme comment. Seems like a good argument to me. If aspartame is cancerous and people drink a shit ton of it wouldnt we have clear evidence? What could explain it being cancerous and not having a clear link despite its prevalence? At the very least this is an interesting point that doesnt deserve a reddit-like meme comment.

I didn't read it as a barb! There really are Diet Coke fiends. If you don't drink a lot of diet soda, the idea of drinking it to the exclusion of all other liquids might seem pretty wacky.

>I didn't read it as a barb!

Didn't intend it as one! Just misidentified a member of my own tribe is all.

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

#575

Post by flashback2199 »

justinator wrote: post #570
sacnoradhq wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Untrue. G100UL is a drop-in replacement for 100LL. TEL should be banned because 70% of all airborne lead is a result of piston-driven general aviation.

It probably works as drop-in replacement, but until there's actual QA, we can't be sure enough. Unless you want planes falling from the sky. Maybe a little more on the table than releasing something to prod and finding a speling mistake. And to be clear: I don't want the dozens of airplanes that fly over me daily to be running leaded gas. Politics is gunna politics I guess.

I don't want planes falling out of the sky, but currently lead is falling out of the sky instead, and I don't want that, either :/

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

#576

Post by justinator »

flashback2199 wrote: post #575
justinator wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably works as drop-in replacement, but until there's actual QA, we can't be sure enough. Unless you want planes falling from the sky. Maybe a little more on the table than releasing something to prod and finding a speling mistake. And to be clear: I don't want the dozens of airplanes that fly over me daily to be running leaded gas. Politics is gunna politics I guess.

I don't want planes falling out of the sky, but currently lead is falling out of the sky instead, and I don't want that, either :/

The smart thing to do would be to ground airplanes that use leaded fuel, but we don't do that because?

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

#577

Post by freshpots »

cookiengineer wrote: post #463
freshpots wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

This [1] and [2] are a pretty good primer on how Kläranlagen are built in Germany where we use a biological water treatment process and are recycling 96% of sewage water. The remaining ~4% (the Schlacke) usually are used as fertilizers for farming or are burned in biogas energy plants. The latter happens when the quality is not good enough or the sewege plant doesn't have a stage 4 filtration system. The German wikip…

That's a sewage treatment plant treatment process. We don't typically drink treated wastewater, but some places recycle the water after a intensive purification process. Chlorine in drinking water treatment is used for disinfection and a small amount is added after treatment to keep bacteria from growing in the distribution system. Your information is not really relevant but interesting.

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

#578

Post by freshpots »

tomcam wrote: post #456
freshpots wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Man it seems like you’re having a rough week. I hope you can enjoy your weekend! Cheers.

Thanks and I was, I'm sorry that I acted like that.

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

#580

Post by xpe »

dcomp wrote: post #451
xpe wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought there was already common terminology for probability of side effects [0] Very common = greater than 1 in 10 Common = 1 in 100 to 1 in 10 Uncommon [formerly 'less commonly' in BNF publications] = 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100 Rare = 1 in 10 000 to 1 in 1000 Very rare = less than 1 in 10 000 Frequency not known = frequency is not defined by product literature or the side-effect has been reported from post-marketing s…

Perhaps, but… How many publications have any such guidelines? Make them public? How well do they follow them?
Post reply on HN