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

111–120 of 156 posts

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

#111

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

belval wrote: post #26
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.

I don't think this is "getting frustrated with science" as much as "getting frustrated with the reporting on science". I don't think people are arguing that doing aspartame research is pointless so much as they are annoyed at the sensationalistic approach taken to report of that research. There is a large difference between "Aspartame may cause cancer" and "Aspartame may cause cancer if you drink 14 cans of diet coke…

But "You can believe anything you want" is a personal choice, there's extra nuance that explains why two bodies disagree if you want to look for it. Ultimately it's on us to read further than headlines or not.

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

#112

Post by mrleinad »

zer8k wrote: post #87
mrleinad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given the alternative is sugar No, the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. We don't need sweeteners.

You do realize you can sweeten more than beverages right? What if a diabetic wants a cookie? Or ice cream? This is why hazard ratios are important.

> What if a diabetic wants a cookie? Or ice cream?

Diabetics can eat cookies and ice cream, they just need to shoot themselves with insulin afterwards. It's having too much of it the problem.

Besides, if something is bad for you, you avoid it. Period. There are infinite other flavors in life to make it all about that single one. "But I want it" is not a reasonable argument.

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

#113

Post by mrleinad »

xen0 wrote: post #76
mrleinad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And given the alternative is sugar No, the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. We don't need sweeteners.

Like alcohol?

I don't understand your point, but alcohol is not safe either.

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

#114

Post by Kirby64 »

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.

Provide your sources here.

Even if they do cause an insulin response (which a bunch of people have noted, is not true for many sweeteners), they do not have calories. If your uncle drank sugared soda instead, I'm certain he'd weigh significantly more than his life drinking diet soda.

Diet sodas are a bit of a trap people fall into, though: if you switch to diet soda and don't also fix your otherwise unhealthy diet, then it won't really help you. It's better than drinking sugared soda, but not exactly the whole solution.

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

#116

Post by autoexec »

edmundsauto wrote: post #110
autoexec wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hav…

> Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years.

I think that's the argument the WHO is making. That given what we've learned over the last ~50 years it does seem possible that aspartame is increasing the rate of certain cancers. It's a pretty modest claim and they think it's worthy of more research. I find that hard to argue against. What's the harm in a bunch of independent researchers spending some time studying the long term impacts of aspartame? If it turns out the effect is very small, or non-existent it won't change anything. People can just feel more confident about chugging down gallons of diet soda every year. If it turns out that a bunch of people drinking aspartame end up with cancers after 70 years when they wouldn't have otherwise, we'd know how to prevent that for the next generation. Scientists get work, we get answers. Seems like a win/win.

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

#118

Post by zwieback »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #72
zwieback wrote: post #62

We have an obesity epidemic, not a diet-coke-cancer epidemic in this country. I'd say the occasional can of diet soda is a good tradeoff.

Sorry, but have you heard about the drastic increase in the rate of young people getting colon cancer?

Sure, that's scary, but the science linking that to sweeteners is very weak. I'm not pro sweeteners but I'm anti bad public science communications.

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

#119

Post by belval »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #111
belval wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is "getting frustrated with science" as much as "getting frustrated with the reporting on science". I don't think people are arguing that doing aspartame research is pointless so much as they are annoyed at the sensationalistic approach taken to report of that research. There is a large difference between "Aspartame may cause cancer" and "Aspartame may cause cancer if you drink 14 cans of diet coke…

But "You can believe anything you want" is a personal choice, there's extra nuance that explains why two bodies disagree if you want to look for it. Ultimately it's on us to read further than headlines or not.

This article title is fine in my opinion as it mostly covers the disagreement between two bodies as you said, but before that one I saw at least 2-3 articles this week that were just "WHO says aspartame causes cancer". That's the thing that angers people because it's obviously clickbait

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

#120

Post by wila »

legitster wrote: post #14

> Schubauer-Berigan acknowledged during a press conference with journalists Wednesday that the studies could contain flaws that skewed the results. She said the classification should be viewed as a call to conduct more research into whether aspartame can cause cancer in humans. > “Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is…

> maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist

Ugh those elite Europeans who want to play it safe.. what's wrong with them?

Post reply on HN