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

281–290 of 584 posts

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

#281

Post by peteradio »

wkat4242 wrote: post #262
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…

Yeah I drink a lot of Pepsi Max. I just love it especially in summer. I've drank it for decades. Would this make me worry a lot? Not really. I have worse health risks like being overweight, pfas etc. The "if it was that dangerous we'd see the effect" is a pretty decent argument IMO considering it's been heavily used for almost 40 years.

What effects from the last 40 years might be missing attribution?

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

#282

Post by aaron695 »

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…

[dead]

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

#283

Post by scubbo »

ramblenode wrote: post #248
Waterluvian wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or HP sauce. Honestly I see it as a feature if we can move product that’s otherwise garbage, as long as it’s not dangerous. Reminds me of “omg do you know what’s in hotdogs?!” Hotdogs are a success story.

Tricking people's bodies into consuming garbage is a feature? For whom?

For people, if the "garbage" still has positive nutritional value that would otherwise be wasted due to taste.

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

#284

Post by favorited »

Aachen wrote: post #260
penneallagricia wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With bacon you know what you get, so you can dose it and take your risks. Aspartame has been sold to us as the healthy alternative to sugar. People literally use aspartame as an excuse to chug liters of soda every day.

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-...

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

#285

Post by ericd »

nonethewiser wrote: post #257
ramblenode wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tricking people's bodies into consuming garbage is a feature? For whom?

Harmless garbage, mind you

Nitrate laden meat consumption is heavily correlated with colon cancer, no?

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

#286

Post by scubbo »

maxk42 wrote: post #274
nonethewiser wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So… restaurants?

Literally yes. Every Starbucks in California has a little placard with that stupid warning to the point where people tune it out.

> Congress passed legislation intended to make life better for people allergic to sesame seeds. Instead, it made things worse.

> The bill, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Biden in 2021, requires manufacturers to label sesame on their products starting this year.

> In response, some companies began adding sesame to products that hadn’t included it in the past—saying it was safer to add sesame and label it, rather than certify they had eliminated all traces of it.

> People with sesame allergies say the result is fewer sesame-free food options, as well as new and unexpected risks from sesame in foods they used to eat without worry.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sesame-allergy-sufferers-wanted...

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

#287

Post by joecool1029 »

shrubble wrote: post #279
iLoveOncall wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that you don't find it distasteful that we add sweeteners to raw cocoa powder to make chocolate edible for humans, so what's distasteful in adding sweeteners to animal feed to make it edible for animals?

People do however eat raw cocoa. And rancid or spoiled food is quite different from 'bitter' food.

They eat unsweetened chocolate (usually marked 100% cacao these days) not so much cocoa powder which has the cocoa butter portion removed. Cocoa powder is pretty rough on its own. Unsweetened chocolate is an amazingly stable food source high in saturated fat which is way more stable and resistant to rancidity than seed oils or milk solids.

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

#288

Post by throwawaymaths »

peteradio wrote: post #281
wkat4242 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I drink a lot of Pepsi Max. I just love it especially in summer. I've drank it for decades. Would this make me worry a lot? Not really. I have worse health risks like being overweight, pfas etc. The "if it was that dangerous we'd see the effect" is a pretty decent argument IMO considering it's been heavily used for almost 40 years.

What effects from the last 40 years might be missing attribution?

Atmospheric nuclear testing

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

#289

Post by ramblenode »

scubbo wrote: post #283
ramblenode wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tricking people's bodies into consuming garbage is a feature? For whom?

For people, if the "garbage" still has positive nutritional value that would otherwise be wasted due to taste.

What is an example of the good garbage that would otherwise be wasted? It seems like nutrient deficient junk food is the main beneficiary of these appetizing agents.

Globally, we produce a huge surplus of calories but a deficit of micronutrients, fruits, and vegetables. The appetizing agents are mostly convincing people to eat more of the former, beyond what they need.

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

#290

Post by userbinator »

tahoeskibum wrote: post #134

Coffee is a known carcinogen (due to formation of acrylamides in roasting). Ripe fruits emit small amounts ethylene that is carcinogenic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#United_States

"Acrylamide is considered a potential occupational carcinogen by U.S. government agencies and classified as a Group 2A carcinogen by the IARC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene#Safety

"It is listed as an IARC class 3 carcinogen, since there is no current evidence that it causes cancer in humans."

Those are very different.

Post reply on HN