Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
1–10 of 584 posts
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#2The weird thing about this is that i stopped drinking Diet Coke, specifically because of aspartame, after reading this same thing in 1996 or perhaps early 97. WHO's decision to wait nearly 30 years before backing that just makes them look impotent.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#3The weird thing about this is that i stopped drinking Diet Coke, specifically because of aspartame, after reading this same thing in 1996 or perhaps early 97. WHO's decision to wait nearly 30 years before backing that just makes them look impotent.
We got to stay actively informed to be eating good stuff way sooner than the official position of the government about various foods. There are so much bad stuff in the typical supermarket. One way is reading the "right" books.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#4The weird thing about this is that i stopped drinking Diet Coke, specifically because of aspartame, after reading this same thing in 1996 or perhaps early 97. WHO's decision to wait nearly 30 years before backing that just makes them look impotent.
We got to stay actively informed to be eating good stuff way sooner than the official position of the government about various foods. There are so much bad stuff in the typical supermarket. One way is reading the "right" books.
How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks also think they're reading the right sources.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got to stay actively informed to be eating good stuff way sooner than the official position of the government about various foods. There are so much bad stuff in the typical supermarket. One way is reading the "right" books.
How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks also think they're reading the right sources.
Does it confirm your priors? Then it’s right.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#6Ok I’ll be that guy. The study says there’s no risk unless you drink equivalent of 70 cokes per day. So I think I’m ok. Barely.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got to stay actively informed to be eating good stuff way sooner than the official position of the government about various foods. There are so much bad stuff in the typical supermarket. One way is reading the "right" books.
How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks also think they're reading the right sources.
It's impossible for a layman to know because most people in accredited positions of authority lie without cessation.
Identify people you trust on a subject, filter their claims through your own ideas about what is reasonable, and hope for the best.
You might still get it wrong. Such is life.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#8To clarify, this doesn't mean aspartame in food is harmful, it means that in certain circumstances it's possible for the chemical to cause cancer. For example, workers exposed to extremely high levels during manufacturing, or breakdown products formed during improper storage.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#9The weird thing about this is that i stopped drinking Diet Coke, specifically because of aspartame, after reading this same thing in 1996 or perhaps early 97. WHO's decision to wait nearly 30 years before backing that just makes them look impotent.
Personally I'm taking the WHO announcement as an implicit signal that they are no longer so tightly controlled/held captive by corporate interests as they have been for the past ... three, four decades?
Better late than never, I guess.
Re: Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got to stay actively informed to be eating good stuff way sooner than the official position of the government about various foods. There are so much bad stuff in the typical supermarket. One way is reading the "right" books.
How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks also think they're reading the right sources.
I disagree with the GP that staying informed about nutrition can be done with books. There is very little generally accepted science when it comes to nutrition. I try to use the "test of time" approach. If we haven't figured out that something was bad after at least 500 years, then it probably isn't that bad. If we've been eating a food for less than 500 years, then it should be considered suspect.