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

131–140 of 156 posts

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

#131

Post by slowmovintarget »

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…

The WHO seems to be following the science, the FDA seems to be following cough something else.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/

Check the table near the end:

- Genotoxicity

- Neurodegneration

- Neurotransmission disruption

- Hormone disruption (including early menstruation in girls No... It's not safe.

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

#134

Post by worik »

habitue wrote: post #128
worik wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar Evidence?

all the bad parts of sugar are from the sugar part of it, not some magic poison added by "refining"

That is not evidence. That is assertion

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

#135

Post by karmaMeansCool »

jemmyw wrote: post #101
lukeschlather wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Thanks for clarifying, this is exactly what I meant to convey.

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

#138

Post by upsidesinclude »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #131
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…

The WHO seems to be following the science, the FDA seems to be following cough something else. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/ Check the table near the end: - Genotoxicity - Neurodegneration - Neurotransmission disruption - Hormone disruption (including early menstruation in girls No... It's not safe.

This is the part that is so utterly maddening.

People will sit and argue the carcinogenic potential and completely ignore they're discussing poison. As if cancer is the only factor that could be of concern.

Notice your comment is down at the far end of the pile, while above psuedointellectuals fiegn insight into FDA & WHO motivations.

Endocrine & hormone disrupting, toxic compounds, but wait for it, hasn't been studied yet -> "there's no evidence" of harmful effect -> food safe

EU already banned a whole host of additives the US public gladly gorges on because we want red drank

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

#139

Post by dangus »

interactivecode wrote: post #99
dangus wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I don’t disagree with the idea of being skeptical about agency motivations and transparency, but this seems like a literal conspiracy theory. There are all kinds of things that cause or are linked cancer that pretty much have to be legal. Can the government entirely ban motor vehicles or delivery trucks? Would you have the government ban ice cream because obesity causes cancer? Government agencies like the F…

Actually banning fossil fuel cars from dense city centers has been proven to be healthier for the people living there. So yeah would be great if they could ban them everywhere.

I agree, but there's a reason that I specifically didn't add those qualifiers. I was talking about a complete ban on vehicles – delivery trucks, school buses, semi trucks, cars in rural areas, etc. They all have negative externalities and verifiably kill people, but they provide obvious benefits that we rely on.

The FDA is there to evaluate risks and decide when benefits outweigh risks.

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

#140

Post by MetricExpansion »

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…

I think this whole thread has an interesting contrast to a prior HN thread about Alcohol being unsafe at any level of consumptions and which is rated as a Group 1 carcinogen by the WHO, a much stronger designation than has been given to Aspartame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193

Choice quotes from the top three comments in that thread:

1) “To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility.”

2) “The WHO is fear mongering. Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live. Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.”

3) “The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.”

I think it’s just emotional reasoning and HN having a classic case of being critical when presented with evidence that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs while being uncritical of evidence that confirms them.

Post reply on HN