Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 156 posts

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#101

Post by jemmyw »

lukeschlather wrote: post #57
karmaMeansCool wrote: post #37

I stopped drinking alcohol due to the possible cancer link seeming much greater than aspartame's link to cancer. It seems strange that the studies are much more conclusive on alcohol's role with cancer than aspartame, but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol. Part of me wonders why this is. One possible reason I see is that people's trust in the studies about aspartame are much lower than their tru…

> but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol This is not true, at least with the WHO. Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen according to the WHO. It definitely causes cancer. The WHO classifies aspartame in Group 2b "possibly a carcinogen." There's some confusion over how to render uncertainty here, but the WHO does not actually classify aspartame as a carcinogen.

I think the op meant concerns amongst the general public. Yes food safety experts have more concerns about alcohol but I would guess there are a lot more people who avoid aspartame and still drink alcoholic beverages.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#102

Post by qup »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #5
qup wrote: post #2

You can believe anything you want, and cite a credible source. Peak 2023

Some questions have fuzzy, ambiguous answers that are subject to interpretation. It was that way last year too. It's not a reason to get frustrated with science. It's an ongoing process.

The answer to the question of whether aspartame is safe for humans is not fuzzy or ambiguous. We haven't found the truth for certain yet, but it will be very black and white eventually.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#103

Post by niam »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #69
legitster wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's hard to even know where to grapple with such a polemic statement. But you mean to say that the FDA's mission is to ignore retirees? Retirees being the the most powerful voting block in the country, the top source of campaign contributions, and top recipient of government funds. Even if I was conspiratorial minded, I would assume the conspiracy works the other way.

That's not what he means. He's referring to the FDA officials retiring, and thus no longer being responsible for any of their decisions on safety anymore, since they're at home relaxing if anything bad happens down the road.

A plain textual reading of the comment doesn't suggest that at all.

Maybe you're referring to a different thread?

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#104

Post by selectodude »

atlex2 wrote: post #53

Diet soda and sweeteners behind them are still a scam even if they don’t “cause cancer.” They’re a scam because they still cause insulin response. Pancreas cranks out insulin after tasting the soda, and there no blood sugar to react with. My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn’t mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn’t loose weight by drinking the stuff.

I have family that died of pancreatic cancer before aspartame existed. So there’s a datapoint that undoes your data point.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#105

Post by autoexec »

atlex2 wrote: post #53

Diet soda and sweeteners behind them are still a scam even if they don’t “cause cancer.” They’re a scam because they still cause insulin response. Pancreas cranks out insulin after tasting the soda, and there no blood sugar to react with. My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn’t mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn’t loose weight by drinking the stuff.

> They’re a scam because they still cause insulin response.

Some sweeteners can cause insulin spikes (sorbitol and xylitol for example), but aspartame does not. There's some evidence that it can still cause insulin resistance though.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#106

Post by codyb »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #69
legitster wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's hard to even know where to grapple with such a polemic statement. But you mean to say that the FDA's mission is to ignore retirees? Retirees being the the most powerful voting block in the country, the top source of campaign contributions, and top recipient of government funds. Even if I was conspiratorial minded, I would assume the conspiracy works the other way.

That's not what he means. He's referring to the FDA officials retiring, and thus no longer being responsible for any of their decisions on safety anymore, since they're at home relaxing if anything bad happens down the road.

Wouldn’t they be consuming FDA approved foods and drugs by people as unscrupulous and heartless as them though in this scenario?

Yeesh, these folk are people, I sincerely doubt “nothing bad’ll happen until I’m retired” is their general calculus.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#107

Post by bastard_op »

If anyone of any reputable standing says something is a potential carcinogen at any level or percentage, why on earth would you continue using it at all? It's well documented aspartame is at worst "not good for you", so why allow it at all? Other than the Coke and Pepsi's that will cry murder and loss of jobs.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#108

Post by Semaphor »

Clamchop wrote: post #96
Semaphor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tonka beans are legal over here, though. And while this lists a bunch of things we have issues with, there are also a few others that might eventually get allowed, but take a long time. Like monk fruit and alluose.

For context, tonka is valued for its coumarin content and coumarin is maligned for its association with the active ingredient in rat poison and some medications, but is a different molecule. Coumarin is found chiefly in perfumes (functional and fine fragrance) and smells sweet and grassy. In this application, it is sold all over the world, including the US. As a flavor in food, it is banned in the US.

And tonka beans kinda taste like a combination of vanilla and something. Like a more complex version of it. Love it for everything sweet and it has almost (it shouldn't be heated) completely replaced vanilla for me.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#109

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

qup wrote: post #102
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some questions have fuzzy, ambiguous answers that are subject to interpretation. It was that way last year too. It's not a reason to get frustrated with science. It's an ongoing process.

The answer to the question of whether aspartame is safe for humans is not fuzzy or ambiguous. We haven't found the truth for certain yet, but it will be very black and white eventually.

It could be safe for some people and not others. It could be safe in combination with some foods and diets but not others. It could be safe according to one scientist's threshold of acceptable risk but not another's. It could be safe in the sense of being less bad than sugar but not in comparison to drinking water. And so on.

Re: FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

#110

Post by edmundsauto »

autoexec wrote: post #94
zer8k wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply conjecture but there have been numerous studies done it. Moreover, it's the most consumed artificial sweetener in the world. In this case, you'd think at least some cases of cancer would appear even by chance related to it. Yet, as far as I know, we really haven't seen any that stood up to statistical rigor. From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? I'd say that samp…

> From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? The few people who started drinking it as teens and adults in the 1970s are now only in their 50s and 60s, and the generations after that have only been drinking it for a few decades. That isn't much data at all to judge long term impacts. 50 years is nothing, and a lot about our consumption of aspartame has changed drastically over that…

Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years. Unless there is reason to think it's a threshold effect - no impact until X level of consumption. I'm not sure whether there is, but even if the impact is "causes cancer after 100 years", we would likely see some signs in some people after 50. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the volume of studies haven't shown small effects increasing over cohort duration.

The Ockham's Razor here - the bigger the causative effect, the more signal it should have.

Post reply on HN