[HN Gopher] Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer r... ___________________________________________________________________ Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports Author : sandebert Score : 128 points Date : 2023-06-29 13:16 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com) | miika wrote: | Mobile phones, WiFi etc a have been under the same classification | by WHO since 2011. The industry didn't take it too seriously, and | probably this one doesn't mean anything either. | | https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.... | shrubble wrote: | Donald Rumsfeld was famously influential in getting aspartame's | approval ; however more of the story behind this can be found | here: | https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846759/Nill,_As... | | In 1984 the year after aspartame's approval for soft drinks, the | company that held the exclusive patent on it, sold $600 million | worth (1984 dollars) of it. | | Myself the truly distasteful part is the use of neotame (a | follow-on to aspartame) on animal feed, to get animals to eat | feed that they normally would not; for instance, if the feed is | rancid or otherwise in a condition/taste that normal animal | instincts, would have the animal reject the food... | iLoveOncall wrote: | > Myself the truly distasteful part is the use of neotame (a | follow-on to aspartame) on animal feed, to get animals to eat | feed that they normally would not; for instance, if the feed is | rancid or otherwise in a condition/taste that normal animal | instincts, would have the animal reject the food... | | What's the difference between that and humans eating a pizza | but not eating the raw ingredients of a pizza? If it's not | inedible anymore I don't see the issue... | cameldrv wrote: | > Myself the truly distasteful part is the use of neotame (a | follow-on to aspartame) on animal feed, to get animals to eat | feed that they normally would not; for instance, if the feed is | rancid or otherwise in a condition/taste that normal animal | instincts, would have the animal reject the food... | | True for human food as well. Maybe it's not rancid, but food | science can make terrible ingredients taste great. Take | Doritos. It's just cornmeal (animal feed) plus a ton of | artificial flavoring that is incredibly well dialed in to make | them delicious and even addictive. | Waterluvian wrote: | 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. | rightbyte wrote: | Cornmeal is just corn flour but with courser grinding? But | glutamate and stuff, sure. Doritos have the same "fake" feel | as Pringles according to my taste. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | I think it's disingenuous to say that cornmeal is just animal | feed. Polenta has been a thing for a long time. | IshKebab wrote: | Yeah that's like saying "sandwiches are just ground up | wheat, plus a ton of delicious filling to make them taste | good" | nielsbot wrote: | Not quite--I assume sandwich fillings are food. Doritos | are coated w flavor powder. | xormapmap wrote: | Most bread you get from a supermarket (even outside the | US) is highly processed garbage, as are many common | sandwich fillings (mayo, salami, margarine). The typical | sandwich is probably up there with many of the other | least healthy things you could eat, so yeah, ground up | wheat with filling to make it taste good is probably | fair. | hombre_fatal wrote: | I don't see how that's the case except for a fear of | "processing". I plug two slices of commercial whole wheat | store bought bread into Cronometer and it has an | impressive mineral breakdown and 14% of the day's | nutrient needs. | fatfingerd wrote: | Lack of bioavailability analysis and links between | processed meat and cancer are fears... of the established | scientific community. | Cerium wrote: | Since you don't even have to add the flavors to make corn | meal taste good. Look at Fritos - corn + oil + salt. | cassianoleal wrote: | And it's awesome, especially fried! | gcanyon wrote: | Healthcare Triage did a review of the research years ago: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf82FfX-wuU | | tl;dw: artificial sweeteners get a bad rap, multiple studies have | found no harm, studies that _did_ find harm were on rats (which | often doesn 't translate to humans), and the harms associated | with excess sugar consumption are numerous, well-founded, and | damning. | dimitar wrote: | This is awful reporting. | | Aspartame has been studied for more than 40 years and no | regulatory body in any country has found it to be cancerogenic; | it is a risky substance for people with a rare desease called | Phenylketonuria. | | So, the reader will be under the impression that it will cause | cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for which | sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real cancer | risk. | sodathrowaway wrote: | Well, is it good or neutral for you? I've always felt like | these diet drinks were just marketing to make you think | everything was fine, feel free to drink as many as you want. | I've worked with a few people that would go through 4-6 Coke | Zeros every day. In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't | have negative long term effects on a human -- all things in | moderation, right? | | Personally, I'll drink a Mexican Coke with cane sugar maybe | once or twice a year, knowing it's not great for me and | treating it as a dessert. | | But I do agree, it's not good reporting. Pretty much no info on | the actual scientific research, but hopefully WHO will give | more in depth data. | mjburgess wrote: | > In no world can I imagine that that wouldn't have negative | long term effects on a human -- all things in moderation, | right? | | Why on earth would you think that? | | It's carbonated water with a tiny amount of food dye, sweeter | and caffeine. The latter of which, iirc, has generally | positive effects. | crooked-v wrote: | Well, the mild acidity is bad for your teeth. Other than | that there doesn't seem to be much that stands out as an | issue, at least from what we know so far. | enlyth wrote: | Can it be called mild? Diet coke has a pH of 3, which is | the same as vinegar | zelos wrote: | There seems to be some suggestion that the sweetness | triggers digestive system changes that could be harmful: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/ | | It's very vague though | pliny wrote: | 1. There seems to be some suggestion that X | | 2. ??? | | 3. In no world can I imagine !X | thesz wrote: | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/ | | [1] shows that artificial sweeteners lead to higher insulin | resistance. It is so because they provoke insulin level | increase due to their sweet taste. | | Caffeine is a tricky one. | | If you can drink 6 cups of espresso a day, you have 50% | less chance developing dementia. But, how can you drink 6 | cups of coffee per day if you do not have good health? It | can be that the "small positive effects of caffeine" are | due to caffeine consumers have a little better health | overall and these with worse health have to consume less | caffeine. | | For an anecdote, I once went completely off caffeine for a | month and haven't noticed a thing after first three days, | when I was unusually sleepy. Even training results followed | the same progression. | cm2012 wrote: | Aspartame is one of the must trustable things we eat. Very few | foods have been studied as much as it has. Both quality and | quantity of studies. | | This is part of how the medical regulation leaders in every | country are the most insanely cautious, neurotic people on | earth. They all recommend not to eat steaks rare. Everything is | a carcinogen. When they have such a low tolerance for danger, | it just means everyone learns not to listen to their advice. | jeron wrote: | effectively this is pick your poison: aspartame or sugar | PreachSoup wrote: | Sucralose is another a widely used option. Cokecola uses | aspartame, pepsicola uses sucralose. You can also easily buy | it off the shelf | ivanhoe wrote: | Sucralose however seems to be stimulating some insulin | secretion even though it has no real caloric value. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19352508/ | 131012 wrote: | Well no. May I suggest water? | carimura wrote: | just don't drink TOO much [1] | | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/ | seanthemon wrote: | You may, thank you | jandrese wrote: | I've found water to be a rather poor sweetener. | tehnub wrote: | I choose Stevia | TheRealPomax wrote: | But what does California's proposition 65 say about it? | pinkmuffinere wrote: | I know this is a joke, but if anyone's curious: Prop65 says | you have to tell people if your product contains chemicals | from a list of carcinogenic substances. The list is kept up- | to-date by California. Prop65 has no punishment for over- | reporting though - you can slap on a warning "just for fun" | if you want. | | Unless California has aspartame on its list, prop65 says | nothing about this. | TheRealPomax wrote: | No aspartame, but aspirin's on there. | https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list | api wrote: | Saw a California shirt once that was a prop65 warning: | "This shirt has been determined by the state of | California..." | HarfShnarfGobb wrote: | > So, the reader will be under the impression that it will | cause cancer, which is pretty dubious, all while obesity for | which sugary drinks are partially responsible is a very real | cancer risk. | | Saying it's "partially responsible" in essence is ridiculous, | though, when it's also a critical nutrient we eat in virtually | every food. Aspartame is not. It's the sheer volume of sugar | ingested that's the issue. | garbagecoder wrote: | High fructose corn syrup is not a critical nutrient. | marcosdumay wrote: | AFAIK, most lists of "possible carcinogenic" are just lists of | things people want to cause cancer but the evidence disagrees. | | There's something to say about lists where people put | substances we don't know a lot, to call attention for studying | more. But I haven't actually seen one of those, it's always | lists of substances people study a lot, and publication bias | set them marginally into statistical relevancy. | autoexec wrote: | I doubt very many people want _any_ substance to cause | cancer. People want the things they eat to be healthy and | wholesome but they 've learned that they can't trust the | people making our food or our regulatory agencies to protect | them. That's caused people to be cautious and distrustful | even when there is little cause for it. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Why is it awful reporting? The WHO's cancer division (IARC - | International Agency for Research on Cancer) is labeling it as | being, quite literally, a "possible carcinogen." That's the | _actual name of the category_. It's either "Not classified," | "Possible Carcinogen," "Probable Carcinogen," or "Carcinogen." | | Don't like it? Bring it up with the WHO. | mrguyorama wrote: | Isn't this the same list that says Cellphones are a possible | carcinogen despite mountains of evidence that they cause no | cancer and also zero known mechanism of action? | rowanG077 wrote: | That list doesn't even contain "Not a carcinogen". So | basically I don't take it seriously at all. | cwillu wrote: | https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare- | pharmaceuticals/... LONDON, June 29 | (Reuters) - One of the world's most common | artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a | possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health | body, according to two sources with knowledge of the | process, pitting it against the food industry and | regulators. | | [...13 paragraphs later...] The IARC's | decisions have also faced criticism for sparking | needless alarm over hard to avoid substances or | situations. It has four different levels of | classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, | possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels | are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than | how dangerous a substance is. | | Using a term with a technical definition that isn't remotely | close to the plain english meaning of the composing words, in | a headline--and not explaining the gag in the first paragraph | --is terrible reporting | sampo wrote: | > The WHO's cancer division (IARC - International Agency for | Research on Cancer) | | IARC is only nominally under WHO. It is a weird French agency | founded by some French activists and politicians in the | 1960's. | | They use a 5 class classification Group 1: | The agent is carcinogenic to humans. Group 2A: The | agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B: | The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group | 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to | humans. Group 4: The agent is probably not | carcinogenic to humans. | | But out of the 1042 chemicals and things they have | classified, none are in Group 4. (Historically, there once | was one single chemical in Group 4, but they have | reclassified it.) | | For IARC, everything is either at least possibly | carcinogenic, or there is insufficient evidence (Group 3) to | yet declare it carcinogenic. | | Also: | | _" In 2019 IARC was accused of cooperation with "toxic tort | law firms" who make profit of suing companies for | compensation for alleged health issues based on IARC | classification. IARC was accused from hiding conflicts of | interest impacting a few invited experts, especially those | related to large-scale cash flows from US law firms."_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea. | .. | | Many countries have perfectly capable chemicals agencies and | food safety agencies, who are much more reliable than the | IARC. | ravenstine wrote: | Purely anecdotal, but I used to drink _insane_ amounts of | aspartame in the form of Crystal Lite. I don 't know what | that's made of now, but decades ago it was made with aspartame, | and I'd guzzle gallons upon gallons of that stuff because it | could be mixed with tap water and was therefore cheaper than | buying drinks in cans. Maybe in the long term it will cause my | butt to fall off in my 60s, IDK, but if aspartame causes | cancer, then it must be incredibly weak given the unglodly | amounts I was consuming on a daily basis. | | Today, I'd still avoid aspartame, but also sucralose, because | it's unnecessary and may even cause insulin to be artificially | raised in response to the sweetness. And I also just don't | drink nearly as much as I used to now that I'm metabolically | healthy. | asfgidonhio wrote: | It's a common fallacy that increasing the dose necessarily | increases the effects. There are a whole lot of chemicals | where the relationship is more complex. There are drugs where | negative effects only occur when the drug is discontinued, | where the effect of the drug increases or decreases as it it | taken continuously, where the effect rapidly saturates and | does not increase with increasing dose, and so forth. | | I know enough about pharmacology to know that I know nothing. | ravenstine wrote: | > It's a common fallacy that increasing the dose | necessarily increases the effects. | | Can you provide an example of a chemical which has effects | on the human body that are completely unrelated to the size | of the dose? Just because the effects of a carcinogen may | be non-linear in relation to the dosage, that doesn't mean | that a greater risk of cancer incidents with a greater dose | is an unreasonable expectation. Some thing _can_ be assumed | unless an exception is identified. | satysin wrote: | Indeed it is awful. | | The BBC has a reasonably good article on this subject today | | https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66057216 | EA-3167 wrote: | I file it under the same category as, "The Daily Mail trying to | divide every known substance into ones which cause cancer, and | ones which cure it." | mrguyorama wrote: | This venn diagram is just a circle | EA-3167 wrote: | And the label for that diagram is that "I'm not saying it's | aliens" guy, but instead of 'aliens' he's saying, | "CHEMICALS". | glonq wrote: | A few of the conspiracy nutters that I know firmly beleive that | "Big Aspartame" is responsible for suppressing information about | its dire negative effects. | | But when you consider: | | - how many doctors and scientists are personally/professionally | motivated to research this | | - how many gov't organizations are concerned about this | | - how many industry competitors would benefit from discovering | this | | - how many lawyers would get rich from exploiting this | | ...then I somewhat doubt that one group could suppress all of | this, globally, for 40+ years. At this point, aspartame is | probably one of the most researched food additives out there. | User23 wrote: | > ...then I somewhat doubt that one group could suppress all of | this, globally, for 40+ years. At this point, aspartame is | probably one of the most researched food additives out there. | | Have you ever heard of tobacco? Suppressing information about | the harmful effects of a popular consumer product for decades | is observably within the capabilities of at least some who | might wish to do so. | kelipso wrote: | And yet it took 40+ years for its danger to be widely | acknowledged. Forgive me but for thinking there is something | suspicious going on... Frankly, the Big Aspartame should be the | default explanation and any other explanation be under more | scrutiny. | samtho wrote: | Big Aspartame does not exist in a vacuum, however. The sugar | industry is arguably bigger, more powerful, and has even more | budget to fund motivated research. I don't trust Big | Aspartame to prove to is that it is safe, but I put my full | faith in Big Sugar to tell us if something is wrong with | Aspartame. | glonq wrote: | I'm not sure that I even beleive in "Big Aspartame". The | patents have expired, so there are dozens of companies who | manufacture it globally. I doubt that they all meet at | their global secret cabal hideout to align their plans to | extinguish all research. | samtho wrote: | To expand on point number 3, the sugar industry is one of the | most notorious at utilizing motivated research to its own | benefit. If aspartame had even slightest chance of causing | illness or cancer, you could bet on the inevitable, unrelenting | smear campaign that Big Sugar would be waging against it. | vosper wrote: | Who are the players in Big Sugar who works exploit this? | Can't be the likes of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, because they'd | also be part of Big Aspartame. | vosper wrote: | Who are the players in Big Sugar who would exploit this? | Can't be the likes of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, because they'd | also be part of Big Aspartame. | samtho wrote: | You're correct that soft drink providers have no horse in | this race as they are mere consumers of sweetening agents, | and the their product output depends on customer demand. It | would hardly make much difference to them if 90% of | consumers started to prefer Diet Coke over Coca-Cola, they | would just make more Diet Coke. | | The sugar industry's escapades are well known. Most | notably, the SRF's (Sugar Research Foundation) war on | dietary fats[0][1]. | | [0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- | way/2016/09/13/493739074... | | [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099084/ | throwaway38249 wrote: | They need to sell something, if people believe sugar is | bad, sweeteners are bad, even disposable plastic bottles | are bad, what's left? | | Edit to add something more concrete, we already have the | "sugar tax" in the UK, to avoid it soft drinks went | mostly sugar free or reduced sugar substantially, and | replaced it with sweeteners. | | And now: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/artificial- | sweeteners-to-face-go... | | Simultaneously: | https://www.gov.uk/government/news/deposit-return-scheme- | for... | freedomben wrote: | Corn farmers are a huge part (because their product makes | high fructose corn syrup) and they are highly effective | lobbyists. | | They are also the ones that pushed ethanol on us and told | us it wouldn't hurt our engines (even though it absolutely | did. Most engines now are designed with ethanol in mind, | but ethanol gas destroyed a lot of otherwise perfectly fine | engines before people realized it was a huge lie. By then | it was too late anyway) | | With the presidential primaries coming up we'll get another | big reminder about how disproportionately influential the | Iowa corn farmers are. | GRBLDeveloped wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2B | | I read through this list before when I was talking to a | conspiracy theorist about 5G. Radio frequencies are on this list. | As are caffeic acid (found in coffee, wine, mint), aloe vera and | pickled vegetables. | LegitShady wrote: | Caffeic acid may be a carcinogen but I do not think any decent | studies have found a connection between drinking coffee and | cancer, and in fact some have found the opposite. | codr7 wrote: | A bigger problem is likely caffeine inhibiting uptake of | vitamin D and disrupting sleep. | tekla wrote: | > The "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with | using mobile phones are "possibly cancer-causing" | | Wow. Easier to list out what doesn't cause cancer | umeshunni wrote: | Did you know that sunlight causes cancer? | marginalia_nu wrote: | The word "possibly" does a lot of heavy lifting in having this | make sense. | beders wrote: | Yeah, with billions of cell phone users humankind is | practically dead now.... | jeegsy wrote: | One would have hoped for a more definitive statement (either way) | than 'possible' | jncfhnb wrote: | Do other people feel like aspartame introduces a tangible | viscosity into drinks? I feel like it's like drinking slime | CydeWeys wrote: | The opposite. Real sugar makes a drink much more viscous. Fake | sugar leaves the mouth feel thin. | vvilliamperez wrote: | I think what you experiencing is an overproduction of saliva to | dissolve what your body thinks is sugar. | mrabcx wrote: | Perhaps this will finally increase the popularity of Stevia. | RamblingCTO wrote: | Just live healthy. I hate the addition of stevia and other | sweeteners to everything. Please give me cane sugar. I'm a | grown up, I can handle my intake, thanks. (Especially anything | in the direction of soylent, green shakes etc. No need for | stevia.) | sgbeal wrote: | The 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. | lotsofpulp wrote: | FYI, according to the linked article, the WHO is not claiming | what you think it is claiming. | | >It is preparing to label the sweetener as "possibly | carcinogenic to humans", Reuters reported on Thursday. That | would mean there is some evidence linking aspartame to cancer, | but that it is limited. The IARC has two more serious | categories, "probably carcinogenic to humans" and "carcinogenic | to humans". | | >It previously put working overnight and consuming red meat | into its probably cancer-causing class, and listed using mobile | phones as possibly cancer-causing. | | >The IARC safety review was conducted to assess whether or not | aspartame is a potential hazard, based on all the published | evidence, a person familiar with the matter told the Guardian. | However, it does not take into account how much of a product a | person can safely consume. | | Some pretty weak claims. Especially weak considering the risk | of aspartame (which are not confirmed, and not at amounts | regularly consumer) relative to the risk sugar it replaces | (which are guaranteed at amounts regularly consumed - see type | 2 diabetes). | nerdponx wrote: | As a kid in the 90s I remember seeing health warnings on things | like artificially-sweetened chewing gum. I have a very specific | memory of asking my dad about it at the local deli. | lkuty wrote: | 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. | gnulinux wrote: | How can a layman determine the right book? Anti-vax kooks | also think they're reading the right sources. | rcme wrote: | 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. | chimeracoder wrote: | > 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. | | While I agree with the spirit of this, I'll point out | that tobacco was brought to Europe over 500 years ago, | and only recently discovered to be one of the most | unhealthy products available. Not to mention that it was | widely used in the Americas for long before that. | | In fact, 450 years after Columbian contact, the medical | consensus was that tobacco was _good_ for health. | jjoonathan wrote: | Tobacco is an all-natural plant product backed by | longstanding tradition! How could it possibly be bad for | your health? | | Ugh, if we hadn't banned them from advertising they would | absolutely be using this angle and it would absolutely be | working. | saalweachter wrote: | Isn't this essentially part of the not-quite-marketing | for marijuana? It's not highly processed like tobacco | cigarettes, it's just natural? | taeric wrote: | Well, it is more than a little insane how much worse | cigarettes were from the things that were added to it. | Even more crazy, to me, to consider how nicotine is by | and large not what made them bad. Such that I'm honestly | not clear on why there aren't more uses of that. | stcroixx wrote: | I'm with you. Sad there's so little knowledge or trust in | that knowledge that we have to just observe over a long | time scale like this. | adriand wrote: | You don't need to read a book. I think you can get away | with three steps: | | 1) This maxim from Michael Pollan: "Eat food [1]. Mostly | plants. Not too much." (I personally follow an adjusted | version of this: "Eat food. Only plants. Not too much.") | | 2) Review daily nutrient requirements to ensure your diet | is providing you with adequate macro (protein, carbs, fat) | and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals). | | 3) A few months after adopting your new diet, get a high | quality blood test that covers markers like iron, B12, | etc., and make any required adjustments to what you're | eating. | | 1: "Real food doesn't have a long ingredient list, isn't | advertised on TV, and it doesn't contain stuff like | maltodextrin or sodium tripolyphosphate. Real food is | things that your great-grandmother (or someone's great- | grandmother) would recognize." | https://michaelpollan.com/reviews/how-to-eat/ | count wrote: | "You don't need to read a book". Immediately cites a | book. | | I don't disagree with your assertion on steps, to be | clear, just that you aren't answering the actual | question. How can you trust Pollan (I'm not saying you | can't, just...that's the core question the OP was | asking). | skummetmaelk wrote: | And if you eat too many of the wrong plants you get | kidney stones etc. etc. Emphasizing variety is very | important. | | It's almost like a second job to keep up with what you | _should_ do. Reviewing daily nutrients is way too much | effort for most folks. | 2devnull wrote: | Does it confirm your priors? Then it's right. | kodyo wrote: | 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. | failbuffer wrote: | That's not enough: you should also read the critics and | opponents of what you think is true. That is, if you're | truly trying to figure out reality and not just seeking | psychological security. | | Remember, the test of a true intellectual is that they | can convincingly defend a position they find abhorrent. | skrtskrt wrote: | I've recently noticed on TikTok a big trend of food | scientists, and chemists that basically just aggressively | "debunk" anyone saying any sort of preservative or | processed food ingredient is bad for you, and they always | fall back on "proven safe for human consumption" which is | just like circular reasoning that the FDA is perfect, | righteous, and good. | | There is of course a lot of kooky beliefs out there about | food. But it seems like there is a very intentional | social media campaign to associate ANY claim that the | stuff in our food is not in our best interest with the | kooks that believe the only safe thing to eat is raw goat | balls or whatever. | | For books anyway, I found The Hundred-Year Lie to be | incredibly in depth, but there's a lot of chemistry so | it's verrry dense. | iopq wrote: | Or you just read a scientific paper. It's called a review | and it goes over several studies and uses statistics to | determine probability of claims. For example, | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/ | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9776645/ | ranger_danger wrote: | Where's the proof that drinking Diet Coke causes literally any | health issue that is a direct relation to the aspartame itself | specifically? Because I don't think that has ever existed | because it's not actually harmful in this way... meanwhile your | post reads like FUD. | brewdad wrote: | Where's your proof that gravity exists and that we fully | understand all of its effects? | | Science doesn't work that way. Meanwhile aspartame has been | _linked to_ many health problems. | kagakuninja wrote: | You can start here: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy- | lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... | | Diet sodas with aspartame contain a warning for this reason. | Now of course, most of us do not have this condition. | | But how do we know if it is safe? I decided 20+ years ago | that artificial sweeteners were a crutch with no nutritional | value and unknown risks, so I stopped consuming them. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Considering that sugar and excess consumption of | carbohydrates is the number 1 health problem around the | world, is it possible that the risks of low calorie | sweeteners are not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of | low calorie sweeteners? | dham wrote: | I was just explaining this to my wife while we've been on | keto. Yes, artificial sweeteners are bad, let's try to | avoid them if possible, but if consuming some aspartame | in jello helps us stay on keto and lose belly fat, then | the benefits outweigh the risk. | monkpit wrote: | Artificial sweeteners may[0] adversely affect the gut | microbiome. | | However, other studies suggest that artificial sweeteners | break down so quickly that they never reach the gut. | | It needs more research, but personally I choose to favor | sugar over sweeteners, and just limit my consumption of | sugar. | | [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156656/ | arbitrage wrote: | 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. | SirMaster wrote: | Existing... is a possible cancer risk. | tptacek wrote: | 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 than by the trace | amounts all sorts of other things in the food supply are, from | small quantities of mold due to spoilage to acrylamide forming in | almost anything we cook), we'd expect to see a pretty obvious | effect in case rates. | | The article mentions a French study showing a "slight" increase, | over 100,000 pts, in an observational study that used self- | reporting to control for other risk factors. I can't find it; has | anyone else? | TheBlight wrote: | Tell me you're a Diet Coke fiend without telling me you're a | Diet Coke fiend. | tptacek wrote: | I don't consume caffeine, but Dave Arnold of the | (unimpeachable) Cooking Issues podcast has a whole spiel | about how Diet Coke drinkers use it as a primary source of | hydration. | femboy wrote: | I wish there was a switch in the mass production of products to | contain neither sugar or sweeteners. | | But it feels like that is never going to happen. | SirMaster wrote: | There are plenty of products that have an unsweetened version, | at least in my experience. | time0ut wrote: | No chance there would be a switch. Consumer tastes and eduction | aren't going to change. | | Short of that, I wish there was clearer and more consistent | labeling. I avoid sugar and sweeteners. Its annoying to be in | the mood for a flavored drink, see something that claims to be | zero sugar/all natural/etc, grab it in a hurry, then discover | on the first sip its got erythritol in it. I read the label, | but sometimes I miss it. My preferred options are unsweetened | iced tea, coffee, or flavored water. Those are reliable, but | can get boring. | | Food is generally easier. I just avoid anything that has (or | should have) a lot of carbs as a rule when looking for | convenient pre-packaged food. No point in sweetening a can of | sardines... | SoftTalker wrote: | You can do it yourself. I used to drink a lot of sweetened | soda. I switched to diet, then stopped. Regular sugar-sweetened | drinks taste sickeningly sweet to me now, and diet drinks taste | like chemicals. | | Once you break the habit, your sense of taste recovers and you | realize how nasty these drinks are. Most people get started on | them as kids when you don't have a nuanced sense of taste and | really crave sweet stuff. | [deleted] | brewdad wrote: | Same. I used to drink multiple Cokes a day. I switched to | Diet Coke sometime in my late 20s. In my 30s I cut back to | one Diet Coke a day and about 4 years ago in my mid 40s I | switched over to carbonated water when I crave something | fizzy but still limit myself to one a day most days. Coffee | and plain water have replaced the soda I used to drink. | | This was all done over time as I realized I needed to change | my diet to keep weight off and I wasn't really enjoying my | daily soda(s) anyway. With an actual intent, one could drop | soda within a few months easily and never miss it. | nwienert wrote: | Until you realize caffeine has long term negative effects | on sleep even at low doses. Only the pure water drinkers | can claim any moral high ground! (I'm not one of them) | stronglikedan wrote: | Why would there be? Sugar is good. Products with sugar are | good. Self control is also good. People can like products with | sugar and exercise self control, so there will always be a | demand for mass produced products with sugar, and that's a good | thing. | sp332 wrote: | Self control doesn't reduce the amount of sugar that's | already added to the soda I would like to drink. It just | means I don't get to drink it. I have to go find low-sugar | sodas. I would like to have more options. | dham wrote: | We have to stop putting sugar in dumb things first, like | ketchup and bacon. We have to get a grip. | kagakuninja wrote: | I just started brewing my own tea and coffee, unsweetened. | Snack foods are a bit harder, but we are better off eating | whole fruits and vegetables anyway. | marvel_boy wrote: | Curiously the share value of COKE has not plunged today. (+0.21% | as we speak) | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Why would it? If it's a carcinogen for Coke then it's a | carcinogen for Pepsi or everyone else. | [deleted] | pessimizer wrote: | Coke owns most sodas, so if you're switching, you're likely to | end up switching to another Coke product. | blibble wrote: | they'll just swap it out for the next artificial sweetener | | and that'll be found to be bad in 20 years time, then they | repeat again | cheekibreeki2 wrote: | Just returned from Ireland and every 'regular' soda was full of | disgusting artificial sweeteners. In the usa these would be | labeled diet. And of course sucralose was pretty common and we're | now finding scary things about its harm to the human body. Sugar | really isn't that bad.. | biomcgary wrote: | As a biologist, I can tell you that sugar really is bad. All | sorts of nasty effects (e.g., look at the RAGE gene and | pathway). Of course, that doesn't mean artificial sweeteners | are a good alternative. Limiting added sweeteners of any kind | is a good idea, just hard to follow. | kushan2020 wrote: | You are making it sound like alcohol - where the warning is | no amount of alcohol is safe. | | Sugar is a naturally occurring substance and is totally safe | for consumption. However, purified added sugar is bad for you | because in nature you cannot find a fruit that contains that | many sugars per gram. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | Sugar in the amount put in soda absolutely is terrible for you. | The problem definitely is with people drinking too much soda, | period, but replacing your average Americans's diet soda | consumption with sugar soda consumption works out to an average | increase of ~73 calories/person/day. Of course, most of that | consumption is being done by the subset of the population | currently primarily drinking diet soda, which multiples that | number by 2-5 depending on what study you refer to. Which would | definitely be an alarming increase in caloric consumption in a | significant block of the population. | bamfly wrote: | It's _really weird_ that we 've normalized consuming huge | amounts of what's effectively an exceptionally-sweet dessert | drink with most non-fancy restaurant or fast-food meals. Shit | made a lot more sense when standard serving size was like 7oz | and free soda refills weren't a common thing (so: the 1950s | or whenever, for the former, and before some time in the | '90s, for the latter). 20+oz glasses (and 32oz "medium-size" | to-go cups--JFC) and free refills pushed by servers are just | nuts. That's _so very much_ sugar. | | Imagine consuming a pile of 37 Pixy Stix (sugar equivalent of | 24oz of Coca Cola) to accompany a hamburger. WTF. That's | plainly nasty as hell, and anyone doing that in public would | rightly feel ashamed. And that's not even a large serving of | soda, by modern standards. | lfowles wrote: | The cups are usually 3/4 full of ice to start with, heh | taeric wrote: | 73 calories actually sounds misleadingly low? How is that | calculated? | | I think this is what you are correcting in the rest of the | post? In that a single soda is typically double that. And | many folks drink more than a single soda. Considerably more. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | The average American consumes 38.87 gallons of soda year. | 43% of Coke sales are Diet, I extrapolated that across the | market, since Coke has a pretty dominant market share | anyway. That's 16.7 gallons of diet soda per American, or | 178 cans of soda. Multiply that by 150 calories/can, divide | by 365, you get the 73 calories. | | As I mentioned before, that's a side effect of averaging | across all Americans, a fraction of who don't drink soda, | and a (much larger, in both senses of the word) who drink | sugared soda. The population that those calories would | realistically be distributed over, the diet soda drinkers, | is somewhere between 20% and 40% of the population, hence | the "multiply by 2-5". | taeric wrote: | Makes sense; but I think it is odd to include folks that | aren't relevant in the increase, though. Really, it is | just weird to see a number that the only way to see an | increase of 78 calories is to swap over into a half of a | drink. | | Granted, you work with what you have. :D | OkayPhysicist wrote: | Yeah, I suspect it works out closer to the "350 more | calories per day in 20% of the population" number, but | again, sources were rough. | mandmandam wrote: | Sugar is pretty bad. Glucose spikes cause a huge amount of | stress in the body. | | But yeah, Ireland's drinks are like that because of a 'sugar | tax', and now it's quite hard to find fizzy drinks without | gross sweeteners. Even brands that were quite high quality | before are kinda rancid now. | mcdonje wrote: | Just because we're finding out many sugar replacements are bad | doesn't mean that sugar isn't bad in high doses as with sugary | drinks. | beebeepka wrote: | Don't consume high doses of anything. Sugar is fantastic. | jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: | Reminder that bacon is already a known carcinogen for those | worrying about artificial sweeteners but happily eating processed | meats. | penneallagricia wrote: | 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. | LegitShady wrote: | It's actually sodium nitrite that's carcinogenic (after being | exposed to high heat), and I can find bacon without sodium | nitrite here pretty much at every grocery store. | [deleted] | remote_phone wrote: | If you read carefully, it still contains sodium nitrite | except as powdered celery. So the source of the sodium | nitrate is "natural" but the dose is still the same. | LegitShady wrote: | Fml so I've been paying more for nitrite free bacon that | still has nitrite in it? | | It feels like saying something contains no nitrites or | preservatives and then including them in the form of | cultured celery extract should be fraud/false advertising | and a crime. | tptacek wrote: | You extremely have been conned by the "nitrite-free | bacon" labeling, yes. This is something that food writers | have been complaining about for over a decade. | malnourish wrote: | Adding to what remote_phone said, and repeating another | comment of mine, that nitrite free bacon still has the same | amount of nitrites (in some cases, more). | | https://www.americastestkitchen.com/cooksillustrated/how_tos. | .. | LegitShady wrote: | There's one place near me that sells actual nitrate/nitrite | free bacon but its super expensive - $10-12 Canadian for | 250grams or so. It like double bacon in the store and its | an hour drive away. | | Sad to learn about the celery nitrite thing. I've been | overpaying for it for a while now, apparently. It literally | says "contains no preservatives" but has "cultured celery | extract" in the ingredients, so its a lie. | galangalalgol wrote: | If it is completely uncured sure, but usually niteite/nitrate | free bacon has an asterisk saying something like "beyond what | is naturally found in the added celery juice". If you heat | those nitrites in the bacon it doesn't the same thing as the | synthetic stuff would. Luckily trichinosis is largely a thing | of the past, so why heat it? Uncooked bacon tastes awesome. | Also, in stews I believe it does reach the dangerous temps? | tptacek wrote: | Sodium nitrate converts to sodium nitrite over the course of | a cure; that's why Prague Powder #2 is used for long-term | cures. | Fezzik wrote: | My understanding is that bacon itself is not the culprit of the | possible (note -- possible) carcinogen. The sodium nitrate that | is often used as a preservative is. Nitrate-free bacon is easy | to find though. | malnourish wrote: | Nitrate-free (or, "no nitrates added") bacon still contains | nitrates. About the same amount as standard bacon, and in | some cases, more. | | https://www.americastestkitchen.com/cooksillustrated/how_tos. | .. | raspyberr wrote: | In the UK, we have nitrate-free bacon available that is | actually nitra(i)te free: | https://www.betternaked.com/products/better-naked- | unsmoked-b... | malnourish wrote: | I'm intrigued. That seems a fair bit different than the | uncured bacon I'm familiar with in the US [0], but I | would certainly give it a try. | | [0]: https://applegate.com/products/natural-thick-cut- | bacon | tptacek wrote: | To what everybody else is saying, I'll add that by the US | definition, that's not bacon; it's back bacon, which is a | loin cut, radically different than American bacon, which | I believe you lot call "streaky bacon". | toolz wrote: | I don't see anything on that site that says anything | other than nitrates weren't added. Where are you seeing | that it's actually nitrate free? | malnourish wrote: | Under "Dietary information" at the bottom of the page, it | says "Nitrite-free, Gluten-free, Dairy-free,[sic]" | toolz wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if that's misleading considering | the other article was suggesting nitrite precursors are | usually what's in the food later to be turned into | nitrite, but I'd love to be wrong. | | You could simply measure the levels of nitrite before any | exists and the end product might still have just as much. | maxerickson wrote: | The one article is talking about celery juice being | stealth nitrates. It's not something that is in the pork | itself. | | The only candidate would be natural flavors, and I sort | of doubt that they would get away with that. | tracker1 wrote: | Better stop eating celery or anything containing it if | you're really concerned about nitrates. | hosteur wrote: | I cute and smoke my own bacon. I do not use nitrite. Also | in my country organic bacon has zero nitrate in it. | Lonewolfa wrote: | Source please | jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: | https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and- | answers/item/can... | adrr wrote: | Or drinking hot tea. Working graveyard shift. Drinking alcohol. | 93po wrote: | Breathing air in any city. | tptacek wrote: | Why stop with nitrates and nitrites? Acrylamide is a known | human carcinogen, and occurs in a huge variety of cooking | processes (including baking, frying, and grilling). If you eat | potatoes, you're almost certainly putting yourself at more risk | than aspartame is: we've got epidemiology and mechanism of | action to back up the potato risk. | likpok wrote: | I believe California even helpfully warns you about any | location that has acrylamide. | [deleted] | thrawa8387336 wrote: | Meh, I'd sooner believe it treats depression. Try having a Diet | Coke and report on the 24h after ;) | mhanberg wrote: | Literally read halfway down the article before they say that | "working overnight" is also in the "probably carcinogenic" | category and that the organization is known for publishing | confusing results that cause panic. | | FFS | fortenforge wrote: | Actually "working overnight" is "probably carcinogenic" which | is a higher evidentiary standard than Aspartame which is | "possibly carcinogenic". | | Basically these WHO cancer guidelines are entirely useless in | terms of public health and have probably done as much harm as | Prop 65 has in California. | yomlica8 wrote: | And here I just thought it just tasted kind of off and gave me | headaches. | jcutrell wrote: | Honestly, what I want to know in a headline like this is "what | changed?" | | As someone who deals with health anxiety already, I have done my | fair share of research on things like this. Aspartame, along with | most other artificial sweeteners, have not been proven to be | carcinogenic in _many_ studies done over a 40 year period. | Additionally, the hazard ratio of any of these sweeteners in | comparison to the equivalent consumption of sugar is laughably | small. | | So, when something like this happens, I really want to know what | the trigger was. My fast-brain fills in the gap with "there was a | new breakthrough in research." But, this categorization doesn't | imply that necessarily. Just that they are doing a review. But | why now? | recursive wrote: | Right here, in this very thread, are comments suggesting that | there is _no_ credible evidence that aspartame is a carcinogen. | nicole_express wrote: | I hope this questionable categorization doesn't result in | aspartame being removed from sodas; I much prefer it to other | artificial sweeteners. Can definitely tell when Diet Coke is | formulated to include them. | brink wrote: | That stuff gives me migraines. I can't even chew most gum without | a headache because it's full of it. | moogly wrote: | Isn't it mostly Xylitol in chewing gum? | brink wrote: | On the list of gums that give me a headache, it's aspartame | on the ingredients list. Believe me, I check. :) | ajhurliman wrote: | Xylitol is actually pretty rare as the main sweetener in gum, | it's a lot more expensive. If gum mentions that it contains | xylitol, check the ingredient list to see if there are other | sweeteners listed first. | | Xylitol is preferable because of its oral hygiene benefits, | but most consumers are choosy enough to make sure their gum | is exclusively xylitol. | | There are some brands on Amazon that sell 100% xylitol gum if | you go out of your way to find it though. Be careful with it | around dogs though, xylitol is insanely toxic to them. | rootusrootus wrote: | The ones I'm familiar with mostly use sorbitol. Though it's | not uncommon to find aspartame on the 'less than 2% of the | following' part of the ingredients list. | myshpa wrote: | Some gum bases are made from non-degradable plastic polymers | ... another reason to stay away. | dghughes wrote: | Weird to have Coke in the Reuters headline when it's not just | Coke that uses aspartame. | | And this is interesting may be related? | | >Aspartame is hydrolysed in the body to three chemicals, aspartic | acid (40%), phenylalanine (50%) and methanol (10%). Aspartic acid | is an amino acid. | | >When there is an excess of neurotransmitter, certain neurons are | killed by allowing too much calcium into the cells. ...The neural | cell damage that is caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate | ... they 'excite' or stimulate the neural cells to death. | | >Methanol is highly toxic; it is gradually released in the small | intestine when the methyl group of the aspartame encounters the | enzyme chymotrypsin. It has been pointed out that some fruit | juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. | | source: https://www.3dchem.com/aspartame.asp | OkayPhysicist wrote: | Diet Coke is undoubtedly America's biggest source of aspartame. | Diet Coke has massive market share. | carimura wrote: | I had a computer science professor who drank so much diet | coke that she had a wall of empty cans stacked up from floor | to ceiling in her office. Even then, 20 years ago now, I was | so grossed out with that level of artificial intake I wanted | to grab her shoulders and shake her. But that wouldn't have | helped my grade. | jaclaz wrote: | Not much diet coke, but (JFYI) ... | | https://uranus.chrysocome.net/coke.htm | lotsofpulp wrote: | What is "artificial intake"? Would it have been preferable | to "real" intake of sugar from regular Coke? | vore wrote: | Why? Why does it matter to you? | quechimba wrote: | Regular coke is probably my biggest source of aspartame now | that they changed the recipe to contain 30% less sugar | compensated by aspartame and acesulfame-k. I bought a Sprite | a while ago and it tasted different so I checked and it | doesn't even contain any sugar even though the bottle looks | just like before and says "100% saborizantes naturales" | (although the sweeteners are artificial). Here's the product | page, https://www.coca-cola.com.pe/marcas/sprite | powera wrote: | Everything _might_ cause cancer. | | https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-... | | The current system (especially CA Prop 65) makes it impossible | for these pronouncements to carry any meaning whatsoever. | [deleted] | throwaway1777 wrote: | Ok 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. | kagakuninja wrote: | I've been hearing that type of argument since the 70s, after | they banned saccharine. | | Let's suppose a chemical causes slow damage to the body, maybe | greatly increasing your risk of cancer or alzheimers if you | drink a can of diet soda per day. How could we possibly know if | it is safe? | | We often test chemicals on rats, but the problem is that they | only live a few years. No one wants to wait 20+ years to see | the results of an expensive study on longer lived mammals | anyway. | | The solution is we feed the rats excessive amounts of the | chemical and see if it causes problems. This isn't a great way | to do it, but what other option would you suggest? | throwaway1777 wrote: | I would simply suggest we stop making any strong claims until | we do know. | jjulius wrote: | You're not wrong, but the full quote from the article is: | | >" _Back in 1981_ they established an acceptable daily intake | of aspartame, of 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per | day. To consume over that limit would require a very large | daily consumption of Diet Coke or similar drinks. On 14 July, | Jecfa may change that risk assessment, or they may not." | | Emphasis mine. I'd be curious to see if this understanding has | shifted in the past 42 years. | benatkin wrote: | That doesn't mean it's good for you. I agree with the | labeling of it as a neurotoxin, whether or not the rubber | meets the pavement at a psychological level. There are better | ways of calming for the vast majority of people than | satisfying a sweet tooth so often. For one thing it can | reduce the overall satisfaction of eating sweet things, | through the law of diminishing returns. | halfjoking wrote: | How do they decide these things at the WHO? I imagine it's | something like this... | | "Sir, people are noticing cancers are skyrocketing among young | people after the Covid vaccine. And we can't get Twitter to | censor posts like this anymore:" | | https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/167170602867987661... | | Ok what scapegoats do we have for this cancer trend? | | We usually tell media to talk about air pollution from climate | change, increased stress in modern society or forever chemicals. | | No, no , no... those are too new of concepts. People aren't | buying it. We need something more timeless, that's been common | knowledge for decades. | | What about aspartame? | | Perfect. I want that report done and published in major media | outlets by the end of the week. | | Yes sir | tahoeskibum wrote: | Coffee is a known carcinogen (due to formation of acrylamides in | roasting). Ripe fruits emit small amounts ethylene that is | carcinogenic. | beebeepka wrote: | The whole war on sugar is baffling to me. After I had my first | glass of soda in a decade, my impression is that artificial | sweeteners are garbage. Poisonous, too. But this has been known | for decades, hasn't it. It's cheap, though. | | As for me, I am off to the toilet for my drink. It has served me | well so far even though it has no taste or electrolytes | neonsunset wrote: | When I accidentally ingest food or drinks containing aspartame, | it takes me out for at least 24h with a hellish migraine. | kyriakos wrote: | I suffer from migraines. Usually related to exposure to sun and | sleep patterns, I found out that drinking diet coke during a | day that I already experienced one of my other triggers, gives | me a migraine almost immediately. Any other day it has no | effect. | h2odragon wrote: | being a statistical outlier means you don't count. Good luck | explaining that to your doctors. | neonsunset wrote: | Statistical outlier? Aspartame is known to be linked to | migraine triggering: | | - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2708042/ | | - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18627677/ | | - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28198207/ | LarsAlereon wrote: | To 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. | arbitrage wrote: | So aspartame in food isn't harmful, aspartame used in the | production of food is harmful. | | Makes me feel so much better. | netbioserror wrote: | Water in the stomach isn't harmful, but water in the lungs | absolutely is. | | If the human digestive system can trivially break down the | amounts of aspartame found in a diet coke, it's fairly | pointless for just about anyone to entertain the scenario of | inhaling a bucket of pure aspartame crystals. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | As is often noted, being exposed to too much or improperly | stored (heated, cooled, contaminated) water can also be | hazardous to your health and that shit's in everything. | [deleted] | kergonath wrote: | Silica can cause cancer, in the form of asbestos fibres or | silica dust. Yet, it's safe to drink from a glass, have | windows at home, and walk on sand. A lot of factors matter | besides chemical composition. | fluidcruft wrote: | Are you suggesting that aspartame in food has a different | physical form that prevents it from entering the body? | graypegg wrote: | It's the dose that makes the poison maybe? | kergonath wrote: | For example. I cannot provide any insight because I don't | with in that field, but it would not be necessarily | surprising that e.g. inhaled powders could have different | effects than ingested compounds diluted in something | else. Quantity would matter a lot as well. | dogma1138 wrote: | It's not only if it enters the body but also how, for | example inhaling aspartame can be very different to | ingesting it. | xeromal wrote: | That's not the only option there. It also could be the | amount of exposure. | [deleted] | HelixEndeavor wrote: | Water isn't dangerous but if you were dropped into the middle | of the ocean you would probably drown. Does that mean you | must swear off water because it's proven to be dangerous | since people drown in it? | cogman10 wrote: | It should. | | There are plenty of chemicals that you regularly consume | which, in high dosages, are fatal but are required at low | dosages. | | Too much calcium will causes osteopetrosis (too little does | as well). | | Too much vitamin K causes liver damage | | Too much vitamin B1 causes hypertension | | Plenty of stuff is dangerous at high levels and safe at low | levels. Our kidneys and liver exist to filter and eliminate | excess. | j45 wrote: | Too little or too much of many foods will be bad | | Where Aspartame is unhealthy in soda could use more | detailed light shed on it. | | There may be some issue with how it's used for food and | soda in second and third world countries compared to First | world. | penneallagricia wrote: | What about the mass of people who in order to drink liters of | soda every day ingest large amounts of aspartame? Is it about | "circumstances" or concentration? | j45 wrote: | Is litres of soda the battery for Aspartame to be bed for | someone? | | What about a few cans a week? | nightski wrote: | Thats interesting. All the recent scientific evidence I have been | seeing has been saying that Aspartame really isn't bad. This | seems suspect. It's so hard to trust science today since it has | become so intertwined with politics and corporate agendas. | hulitu wrote: | AFAIK it can cause diarrhea. | vore wrote: | Aspartame is not a sugar alcohol like the other artificial | sweeteners that do cause diarrhea due to incomplete | digestion. | carimura wrote: | agreed, it's really hard with lobbyists, captured agencies, | flawed studies, social media noise, political narratives, etc | etc etc. We try our best to just go back to first principles: | as close to the food source as possible, as few added | ingredients as possible, organic, etc. | tptacek wrote: | Ahh, the naturalist fallacy. But the natural substitutes for | artificial sweeteners are markedly worse for you, and more | primitive, less industrial cooking and food preparation | techniques often can be as well. | RhodesianHunter wrote: | It's always surprising to me how quick we are to go from | discovering a chemical to mass-producing it. We're only just | figuring out all of the negative externalities of things like | PFAS, and they're in absolutely everything (packaging, clothes, | pizza box linings, food cans, cookware...) | aio2 wrote: | Yes, "We've" figured out the dangers of PFAS just now, but when | companies started producing them back over 50 years ago, | company 3M knew it (to say the least) wasn't good. | | I'm pretty sure the scientists who dealt with these chemicals | even warned against using it, but some higher ups still let it | pass | flashback2199 wrote: | Leaded gasoline will really blow your mind, at least it did for | me | | Edit: Figuratively not literally, haha! | kzrdude wrote: | It was known to be harmful back in 1920s when it was | introduced | justinator wrote: | But it solved a problem that got in the way of selling you | things! | | It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies | over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still | haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in | my lifetime). | freedomben wrote: | > _It 's also still used in most every prop engine that | flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we | still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never | will (in my lifetime)._ | | Do you know why? I was under the impression that avgas | (aka leaded gas for airplanes) was being forced out | (albeit slowly) by EPA | mcast wrote: | Vertasium has a great video on the invention of leaded | gasoline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA | wcedmisten wrote: | Interestingly, the inventor of leaded gasoline also invented | freon. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. | nielsbot wrote: | Smithsonian Magazine has an article about that angle | | "One Man Invented Two of the Deadliest Substances of the | 20th Century" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart- | news/one-man-two-deadly... | justinator wrote: | 3M knew about the negative "externalities" of PFAS 50 years | ago, they just decide YOU didn't nee to know. | | https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... | | It's the same with oil companies having studies on climate | change privately, while discounting climate scientists | publicly. | | Profits over People is the way of Capitalism! | no_butterscotch wrote: | I'm always surprised by this when it's "50 years ago". | | Certainly the scientists and analysts at 3M who collected and | analyzed the data would have thereafter known of it's | extremely harmful effects. | | And I don't mean to open this up to "heh yea well they made | bank!" I don't think they did relatively speaking. | | My main question, is that certainly those scientists would | have been advising their friends and families to stay away | from X, Y, and Z products because they contain PFAS? | ethanbond wrote: | It's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of | things when you get a big payday by doing so. | | This is why analyzing clinical trial data is so obscenely | hard. There are bad actors, there are liars, and there are | scientists who are really, really hoping to achieve a | breakthrough. All of them are liable to end up putting | forth bad information. | justinator wrote: | _> It 's pretty easy to accidentally convince yourself of | things when you get a big payday by doing so._ | | Is it easy to turn a blind eye, when factory workers in | your own company were dying, or is what we're describing | called at best criminal, and at worst psychotic? | | They were literally just dumping these chemicals down the | river. They were fined a small fraction of their profits | (of billions) and told pretty please to not do it again. | This is obvious corruption on so many levels. | ethanbond wrote: | This happened at 3M? What are you referring to? | mvdtnz wrote: | Every now and then I get car parts delivered from USA and without | fail they come with a label telling me they cause cancer. I can't | take this kind of labeling seriously when it comes from an | American source. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-29 23:00 UTC)