[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)