[HN Gopher] FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO fin...
___________________________________________________________________
FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding
Author : hanniabu
Score : 59 points
Date : 2023-07-14 18:30 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| cwkoss wrote:
| I would love to see a log of the communications between coca cola
| execs and the FDA leading up to this announcement.
|
| Even if aspartame is perfectly safe, feels like there is a strong
| subtext of corporate protectionism to this statement.
| voz_ wrote:
| Only if you show me the log of wire transfers to WHO execs from
| the CCP lol
| aspartame wrote:
| Aspartame is on the WHO list for "possibly" cancer trigger.
|
| Higher up on the list is hot water for "PROBABLY" cancer trigger:
| https://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-cancer...
| greatfilter250 wrote:
| [dead]
| karmaMeansCool wrote:
| I stopped drinking alcohol due to the possible cancer link
| seeming much greater than aspartame's link to cancer. It seems
| strange that the studies are much more conclusive on alcohol's
| role with cancer than aspartame, but the concerns are much higher
| for aspartame than alcohol. Part of me wonders why this is. One
| possible reason I see is that people's trust in the studies about
| aspartame are much lower than their trust in the studies about
| alcohol.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| > but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol
|
| This is not true, at least with the WHO. Alcohol is a Group 1
| carcinogen according to the WHO. It definitely causes cancer.
| The WHO classifies aspartame in Group 2b "possibly a
| carcinogen." There's some confusion over how to render
| uncertainty here, but the WHO does not actually classify
| aspartame as a carcinogen.
| jemmyw wrote:
| I think the op meant concerns amongst the general public. Yes
| food safety experts have more concerns about alcohol but I
| would guess there are a lot more people who avoid aspartame
| and still drink alcoholic beverages.
| morninglight wrote:
| Follow the money -
|
| Where the dollars go: Lobbying a big business for large food and
| beverage CPGs
|
| https://www.fooddive.com/news/where-the-dollars-go-lobbying-...
| qup wrote:
| You can believe anything you want, and cite a credible source.
|
| Peak 2023
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Some questions have fuzzy, ambiguous answers that are subject
| to interpretation. It was that way last year too. It's not a
| reason to get frustrated with science. It's an ongoing process.
| belval wrote:
| I don't think this is "getting frustrated with science" as
| much as "getting frustrated with the reporting on science".
|
| I don't think people are arguing that doing aspartame
| research is pointless so much as they are annoyed at the
| sensationalistic approach taken to report of that research.
| There is a large difference between "Aspartame may cause
| cancer" and "Aspartame may cause cancer if you drink 14 cans
| of diet coke a day".
|
| It's pointless distractions at best and downright fear-
| mongering at worse in the attempt of getting ad-revenue from
| clicks.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| But "You can believe anything you want" is a personal
| choice, there's extra nuance that explains why two bodies
| disagree if you want to look for it. Ultimately it's on us
| to read further than headlines or not.
| belval wrote:
| This article title is fine in my opinion as it mostly
| covers the disagreement between two bodies as you said,
| but before that one I saw at least 2-3 articles this week
| that were just "WHO says aspartame causes cancer". That's
| the thing that angers people because it's obviously
| clickbait
| qup wrote:
| The answer to the question of whether aspartame is safe for
| humans is not fuzzy or ambiguous. We haven't found the truth
| for certain yet, but it will be very black and white
| eventually.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| It could be safe for some people and not others. It could
| be safe in combination with some foods and diets but not
| others. It could be safe according to one scientist's
| threshold of acceptable risk but not another's. It could be
| safe in the sense of being less bad than sugar but not in
| comparison to drinking water. And so on.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| My understanding is that the WHO has maintained its recommended
| max. daily intake, which is the equivalent of about 10 cans of
| soft drinks a day... make of that what you will.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 7-11 at one point had a 128oz fountain drink which is more than
| 10 cans of soda (i.e. 120 fl oz).
| freedomben wrote:
| Yep that's true. In the summer of '04 I worked as a Napa
| delivery driver, driving parts orders all over the city to
| mechanic shops as needed. 7-11 had a location right across
| the street from us, so it was common that we would make a
| "sev" run in the morning to get everybody caffeinated. The
| manager there was a badass classic parts guy that was a great
| guy and who did his job really well, but drank copious
| amounts of caffeine.
|
| 7-11 started selling an enormous 128 oz mug that we would
| fill with soda in the morning and drink throughout the day.
| That was an insane amount of soda. But my boss at the time
| would have me take his 128 oz mug and fill it with several
| _pots_ of _coffee_. The clerk at sev would joke about how she
| had to make a couple of extra pots around 8 am because of my
| boss, and how "I know it's still for him even if he's too
| chicken to come in himself."
|
| To this day I've never known anybody that drank as much
| caffeine as he did. I'm guessing the nicotine from the chain
| smoking helped take some of the edge off :-D
|
| Those were different times.
| jackstraw14 wrote:
| I've worked with folks who sit at their desk and drink diet
| soda from those giant reusable 64oz cups, all day. When it's
| all zero calories, I guess I can see how you get there.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That is insane, are they peeing every hour? I feel like at
| that point it must affect work output.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| The stuff is caffeinated, it probably helps.
| amethyst wrote:
| time lost maybe nullified by increased focus and lack of
| fatigue due to the caffeine?
| strict9 wrote:
| Ask someone who has worked in a restaurant about the habits of
| diet coke drinkers. They always require 10x or more refills
| than water or soda.
| [deleted]
| anonporridge wrote:
| Perhaps that's partially due to a feeling of moral licensing?
|
| e.g. This thing has no calories, therefore I feel justified
| in overindulging and drinking tons of it to let my primal
| urge for sweetness go unopposed.
| Clamchop wrote:
| I have a feeling those with an existing opinion on sweeteners
| will choose to trust whichever agency agrees with them.
| legitster wrote:
| > Schubauer-Berigan acknowledged during a press conference with
| journalists Wednesday that the studies could contain flaws that
| skewed the results. She said the classification should be viewed
| as a call to conduct more research into whether aspartame can
| cause cancer in humans.
|
| > "Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the
| human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns
| when aspartame is used under the approved conditions," an agency
| spokesperson said late Thursday shortly after the WHO released
| its findings.
|
| I'm going to side with the FDA on this one. Aspartame could
| possibly hold the title as the _most_ scrutinized chemical in
| history. So for the WHO to give such a limp wristed statement
| calling for more research is unbelievably pandering.
|
| It's also vaguely _un-_ scientific. Even with a 99% confidence
| interval, we _know_ that 1 out of every 100 analysis studies is
| going to reach a false conclusion. So just based on the sheer
| number of studies conducted on Aspartame, we _know_ there are
| going to be links that turn out inconclusive. Latching onto a
| small number of niche cases and ignoring the preponderance of
| evidence is essentially calling for infinite research.
|
| The WHO has a tendency to lean overly-cautious. And if we are
| being fully honest, maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist.
| And given the alternative is _sugar_ which has obvious and known
| health side effects it 's hard not to see this as some bored
| staff playing games.
| oxfordmale wrote:
| A lot of your criticism seems to be playing the man rather than
| the ball.
|
| The WHO said a person weighing 70kg would need to consume more
| than between nine and 14 cans of diet soft drink per day to
| exceed the daily guideline. So basically the FDA and WHO are in
| agreement, but the WHO uses more cautious language.
| legitster wrote:
| Sure, but as much as the news is going to pick up this story
| and blow it out of proportion, I think people should kind of
| know they are being played with here.
| oxfordmale wrote:
| WHO can't be held responsible for headlines put out by
| newspapers.
|
| WHO declared aspartame possibly carcinogenic, putting it in
| the same class as mobile phone usage That means there is
| some limited evidence pointing in that direction, but that
| further studies are needed to confirm this. I don't think
| this statement is incorrect. In the end is all about the
| daily dosis, and the possibly increase in cancer (is it
| 0.005% or 5%).
|
| If you need to drink 40 cans to increase your cancer risk
| by 0.005%, it would be irrelevant for most people.
| mrleinad wrote:
| > And given the alternative is sugar
|
| No, the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. We
| don't need sweeteners.
| xen0 wrote:
| Like alcohol?
| mrleinad wrote:
| I don't understand your point, but alcohol is not safe
| either.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Like tea.
| [deleted]
| serf wrote:
| >the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages.
|
| people seek replacements when things they like become scarce,
| not alternatives.
|
| asking the public-at-large to wholly change preference
| (especially when the preference is compounded by biological
| bias in the way we experience taste..) will never be
| effective without extenuating circumstance or market control
| of some sort.
|
| I sympathize with your point -- people should try to enjoy
| things without a lot of excess sweetness -- but it doesn't
| align with reality.
| zer8k wrote:
| You do realize you can sweeten more than beverages right?
| What if a diabetic wants a cookie? Or ice cream?
|
| This is why hazard ratios are important.
| mrleinad wrote:
| > What if a diabetic wants a cookie? Or ice cream?
|
| Diabetics can eat cookies and ice cream, they just need to
| shoot themselves with insulin afterwards. It's having too
| much of it the problem.
|
| Besides, if something is bad for you, you avoid it. Period.
| There are infinite other flavors in life to make it all
| about that single one. "But I want it" is not a reasonable
| argument.
| Clamchop wrote:
| Aspartame and most sweeteners fall apart at high
| temperatures, limiting their usefulness for a lot of
| foodstuffs, like cookies.
|
| Which is a shame in my opinion.
| fatfingerd wrote:
| The only alternative isn't sugar. We need to back away from
| this whole project. We don't need to have everything taste like
| candy,
| justrealist wrote:
| It's not the job of the FDA or WHO to tamper with scientific
| evidence to push people in that direction. That's how people
| lose trust in the institutions of science.
| fatfingerd wrote:
| The WHO should hold back on condemning universal sweetening
| that will make it impossible for anyone to tally the amount
| they've consumed because people might go back to sugar?
| They should lie or they should say this path is also
| probably unsafe?
|
| I don't really see anything inconsistent with the WHO or
| the FDA statements. The WHO wants health across
| contingencies and the FDA wants to sell diabetes causing
| drinks to the maximum extent that they don't provably hurt
| health.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most
| scrutinized chemical in history.
|
| I don't understand this talking point, but I see it repeated
| often. Aspartame has only been approved since the 70s and was
| only discovered in the 1960s. The total of all the years of
| use/research into Aspartame doesn't even amount to a single
| human lifespan. It's barely over half of one! How the hell are
| we supposed to have any idea of the long term effects from
| that? In terms of "most scrutinized chemical in history" I
| don't think Aspartame has a chance against chemicals like water
| or ethanol.
| zer8k wrote:
| This is simply conjecture but there have been numerous
| studies done it. Moreover, it's the most consumed artificial
| sweetener in the world. In this case, you'd think at least
| some cases of cancer would appear even by chance related to
| it. Yet, as far as I know, we really haven't seen any that
| stood up to statistical rigor.
|
| From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of
| aspartame consumers? I'd say that sample size is enough to
| draw a reasonable conclusion from.
|
| I may be wrong in my assumption here but the amount of
| aspartame needed to cause these types of things is _insane_.
| The amount of aspartame you would need to consume to even
| approach a level considered mildly hazardous with this new
| data would be 14 sodas.
| autoexec wrote:
| > From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of
| aspartame consumers?
|
| The few people who started drinking it as teens and adults
| in the 1970s are now only in their 50s and 60s, and the
| generations after that have only been drinking it for a few
| decades. That isn't much data at all to judge long term
| impacts. 50 years is nothing, and a lot about our
| consumption of aspartame has changed drastically over that
| time. In the 1970s people weren't drinking 3-6 cans of diet
| soda a day. The average American today is drinking a bit
| less than the 58 gallons of soda a year that we drank in
| the 90s, but it's still a lot more than was being consumed
| for the first decade or two since aspartame was added.
|
| Personally, I don't even drink soda and so I have no skin
| in this game whatsoever. I honestly have no idea what the
| long term risks of Aspartame are, I just doubt anyone could
| have much confidence with less than 50 years of research. I
| can say that it seems highly unlikely that there are dire
| short term effects at least, but I have nothing but
| sympathy for those who are skeptical considering that
| companies routinely buy research to show whatever
| conclusions they want to see while burying any results that
| are unfavorable and the FDA often seems to care more about
| protecting profits than human lives. We've seen again and
| again that companies are willing to knowingly poison people
| and that regulatory agencies are ineffective at protecting
| us from it, so I can't blame anyone for being cautious.
|
| Considering that the WHO's stance of "possible carcinogen"
| isn't a strong claim in the first place and the
| recommendation for additional research can't hurt anyway it
| doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong,
| we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years.
| Unless there is reason to think it's a threshold effect -
| no impact until X level of consumption. I'm not sure
| whether there is, but even if the impact is "causes
| cancer after 100 years", we would likely see some signs
| in some people after 50. It doesn't seem reasonable to me
| that the volume of studies haven't shown small effects
| increasing over cohort duration.
|
| The Ockham's Razor here - the bigger the causative
| effect, the more signal it should have.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Even given these limitations, if the effect were
| strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50
| years.
|
| I think that's the argument the WHO is making. That given
| what we've learned over the last ~50 years it does seem
| possible that aspartame is increasing the rate of certain
| cancers. It's a pretty modest claim and they think it's
| worthy of more research. I find that hard to argue
| against. What's the harm in a bunch of independent
| researchers spending some time studying the long term
| impacts of aspartame? If it turns out the effect is very
| small, or non-existent it won't change anything. People
| can just feel more confident about chugging down gallons
| of diet soda every year. If it turns out that a bunch of
| people drinking aspartame end up with cancers after 70
| years when they wouldn't have otherwise, we'd know how to
| prevent that for the next generation. Scientists get
| work, we get answers. Seems like a win/win.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| There have hardly been 4 generations of aspartame
| consumers, since quite a few of the 1970s generation are
| still with us (would it be more or less if they'd had no
| aspartame? I have no idea, do you?) and mass use didn't
| kick in until later anyway.
| wila wrote:
| > maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist
|
| Ugh those elite Europeans who want to play it safe.. what's
| wrong with them?
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| The WHO seems to be following the science, the FDA seems to be
| following _cough_ something else.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/
|
| Check the table near the end:
|
| - Genotoxicity
|
| - Neurodegneration
|
| - Neurotransmission disruption
|
| - Hormone disruption (including early menstruation in girls <
| 10yrs old)
|
| No... It's not safe.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I agree, but studies have nowhere close to a 99% confidence
| interval. Half or more of these types of studies reach false
| conclusions and are not reproducible.
| wredue wrote:
| The WHO does have a tendency to lean overly cautious.
|
| But you have to remember that the FDA is not working for YOUR
| best interest either. When the FDA says that something is
| "safe", what it actually means is "the economic impacts of this
| are probably negligible in a lifetime". So if aspartame causes
| cancer after your career is over, then it's safe according to
| the FDA.
|
| The WHO isn't under the same lobbying or economic pressures,
| and approach their statements from entirely different
| perspectives than the FDA.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Even if true, isn't economic impact just a proxy for human
| harm since the more working and healthy humans the better?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I mostly agree. Both agencies have their flaws (what
| doesn't?) but on the whole, I trust WHO more than the FDA.
|
| Which isn't to say I'll always side with WHO over FDA when
| they disagree, of course.
| bawolff wrote:
| > "the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a
| lifetime"
|
| I mean, how else would you define "safe"? I have trouble
| imagining something both unsafe and has no ecconomic impact.
| klodolph wrote:
| The FDA has a history of being cautious as well. Perhaps even
| overly cautious.
|
| > So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over,
| then it's safe according to the FDA.
|
| I would love to see some kind of foundation for this, to
| explain where your beliefs about FDA processes are coming
| from.
| legitster wrote:
| I mean, it's hard to even know where to grapple with such a
| polemic statement. But you mean to say that the FDA's mission
| is to ignore retirees? Retirees being the the most powerful
| voting block in the country, the top source of campaign
| contributions, and top recipient of government funds.
|
| Even if I was conspiratorial minded, I would assume the
| conspiracy works the _other_ way.
| atomicUpdate wrote:
| That's not what he means. He's referring to the FDA
| officials retiring, and thus no longer being responsible
| for any of their decisions on safety anymore, since they're
| at home relaxing if anything bad happens down the road.
| niam wrote:
| A plain textual reading of the comment doesn't suggest
| that at all.
|
| Maybe you're referring to a different thread?
| codyb wrote:
| Wouldn't they be consuming FDA approved foods and drugs
| by people as unscrupulous and heartless as them though in
| this scenario?
|
| Yeesh, these folk are people, I sincerely doubt "nothing
| bad'll happen until I'm retired" is their general
| calculus.
| worik wrote:
| > So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over,
| then it's safe according to the FDA.
|
| That is a big claim. It fits my priors. But is there any
| evidence for it?
| nomel wrote:
| From what I've seen, it appears that plastics/endocrine
| disruptors are evidence of this. BPA being a previous
| example [1], with most other plastics being a current
| example [2], including the "BPA free" replacements like
| BPS.
|
| [1] https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nrdc-fda-reach-
| settlemen...
|
| [2] https://sdg.iisd.org/news/household-plastic-products-
| disrupt...
| criddell wrote:
| > The WHO does have a tendency to lean overly cautious
|
| Not always. It took them far too long to acknowledge COVID-19
| could be transmitted through the air.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
| chrisco255 wrote:
| That tells you about how much you should listen to their
| opinions on the causation of cancer, eh?
| [deleted]
| dangus wrote:
| Not that I don't disagree with the idea of being skeptical
| about agency motivations and transparency, but this seems
| like a literal conspiracy theory.
|
| There are all kinds of things that cause or are linked cancer
| that pretty much have to be legal. Can the government
| entirely ban motor vehicles or delivery trucks? Would you
| have the government ban ice cream because obesity causes
| cancer?
|
| Government agencies like the FDA have to deal with the
| complexities of the real world. Risk of death is involved
| with daily life, so they are often tasked with the analysis
| of risk.
|
| The layperson doesn't really like to hear that they're just a
| number in a statistics database but it's true.
|
| 40% of people get cancer in their lifetime. So if you have a
| chemical that increases cancer risk by an insignificant
| enough percentage, there's a pretty understandable debate on
| whether banning something like that is an overreach or not.
| What are the benefits of the chemicals? What are the risks?
| interactivecode wrote:
| Actually banning fossil fuel cars from dense city centers
| has been proven to be healthier for the people living
| there. So yeah would be great if they could ban them
| everywhere.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most
| scrutinized chemical in history
|
| You could almost say that it's the Lance Armstrong of food
| additives.
| fuzzylightbulb wrote:
| This is genuinely hilarious. Well done.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| That's hilarious.
| BrianHenryIE wrote:
| It is "normal" that the US allows food (additives, at least) that
| is banned in Europe
|
| https://archive.is/N6JI1
| klodolph wrote:
| It is also normal that many European foods are banned in the
| US. For every discussion I see about how the FDA is crazy for
| letting Americans consume all these various additives, I see
| another discussion about how the FDA is crazy for banning
| $EUROPEAN_FOOD. Unpasteurized milk is one of the more common
| ones people talk about (along with products made from
| unpasteurized milk). Kinder eggs were another, but the
| situation has changed. People also scoff at the American habit
| of refrigerating eggs (which is fine--the choice to refrigerate
| or not refrigerate eggs just has to be consistent with the ways
| eggs are prepared for consumers in your country, and in the US,
| refrigeration is correct, because of the way eggs are treated).
| vikingerik wrote:
| Kinder eggs didn't change by the rule, the manufacturer just
| found a workaround. The rule is that a toy can't be inside
| food. The US version of Kinder eggs (Kinder Joy) comes in two
| separatable halves so that the toy isn't inside it.
| rconti wrote:
| That's inherent any time there's any disagreement in any
| regulation.
| legitster wrote:
| As a counter: I would strongly recommend people read Derek
| Lowe's takedown of a lot of these claims:
| https://corante.com/snake-oil/eight-toxic-foods-a-little-che...
| Semaphor wrote:
| Tonka beans are legal over here, though.
|
| And while this lists a bunch of things we have issues with,
| there are also a few others that might eventually get allowed,
| but take a long time. Like monk fruit and alluose.
| Clamchop wrote:
| For context, tonka is valued for its coumarin content and
| coumarin is maligned for its association with the active
| ingredient in rat poison and some medications, but is a
| different molecule.
|
| Coumarin is found chiefly in perfumes (functional and fine
| fragrance) and smells sweet and grassy. In this application,
| it is sold all over the world, including the US.
|
| As a flavor in food, it is banned in the US.
| Semaphor wrote:
| And tonka beans kinda taste like a combination of vanilla
| and something. Like a more complex version of it. Love it
| for everything sweet and it has almost (it shouldn't be
| heated) completely replaced vanilla for me.
| bastard_op wrote:
| If anyone of any reputable standing says something is a potential
| carcinogen at any level or percentage, why on earth would you
| continue using it at all? It's well documented aspartame is at
| worst "not good for you", so why allow it at all? Other than the
| Coke and Pepsi's that will cry murder and loss of jobs.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _WHO says soda sweetener aspartame may cause cancer, but it's
| safe within limits_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717961 - July 2023 (9
| comments)
|
| _Aspartame Is a Possible Cause of Cancer in Humans, a WHO Agency
| Says_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717553 - July 2023
| (5 comments)
|
| _The WHO is about to declare aspartame can cause cancer_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644185 - July 2023 (26
| comments)
|
| _Aspartame: Once More Unto the Breach_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36562739 - July 2023 (199
| comments)
|
| _Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36522471 - June 2023 (30
| comments)
|
| _Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO,
| say reports_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519942 -
| June 2023 (565 comments)
| zwieback wrote:
| We have an obesity epidemic, not a diet-coke-cancer epidemic in
| this country. I'd say the occasional can of diet soda is a good
| tradeoff.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Sorry, but have you heard about the drastic increase in the
| rate of young people getting colon cancer?
| [deleted]
| zwieback wrote:
| Sure, that's scary, but the science linking that to
| sweeteners is very weak. I'm not pro sweeteners but I'm anti
| bad public science communications.
| cwkoss wrote:
| "occasional can of diet soda" is a minimizing strawman.
|
| I recently had a friend quit diet pepsi - he used to drink as
| many as 18 cans per day. I'm not sure its responsible for
| federal regulators to call that behavior 'safe', and am glad
| he's kicked the habit.
| zerocrates wrote:
| I don't think the regulators would call drinking 18 cans of
| anything a day "safe." An ingredient being safe doesn't mean
| you can have unlimited amounts of it with no ill effects;
| this isn't even true of water.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| An occasional can of regular soda is also fine. The problem is
| mass consumption of either, and the link between soda and fatty
| foods. People eating salads aren't drinking a coke of any kind.
| What goes great with a coke? A giant BBQ pulled pork sandwich
| with sloppy fries and onion rings.
| kakaface wrote:
| [flagged]
| neonsunset wrote:
| Regardless what WHO or FDA say, Aspartame is a hazard for people
| prone to migraines. It took years for me to find it out and it
| seems this experience tracks with other posters on HN whenever
| the topic comes up.
| chomp wrote:
| > An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to
| drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda
| daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks.
|
| Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't
| wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of
| aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially
| an issue with aspartame somewhere in there.
|
| Yes, "everything causes cancer" but I don't disagree with the
| WHO's decision. Something's there, even if it's negligible.
| withinrafael wrote:
| Probably obvious to many, but I wanted to throw out there:
| after quick audit of my kitchen, I found aspartame in or added
| to other products (e.g., chewing gum, coffee, smoothie mixes,
| cereal, ice cream, etc.). So lets make sure we keep that in
| mind when quantitatively measuring aspartame consumption!
| worik wrote:
| How many processed foods in your kitchen?
|
| I have zero aspartame. Certainly none in my coffee
|
| It should be food in your kitchen
| anonporridge wrote:
| Even still, if all of that is replacing sugar and plummeting
| your risk of diabetes, a small increased risk of cancer after
| a lifetime of consumption seems like a very acceptable
| tradeoff.
| pc86 wrote:
| I wonder what the time-frame for this is. If I drink 14 cans of
| diet soda once, have I permanently increased my odds of cancer?
| That seems likely. If I drink 14 cans of _anything_ other than
| water or maybe coffee every day for 30 years I would expect
| negative health effects.
|
| It would be great if they had some sort of time-frame.
| tedunangst wrote:
| If you plan on living 200 years, I guess you'd have to
| restrict yourself to five cans per day to stay under your
| lifetime limit.
| kelipso wrote:
| Cancer risk is accumulative I'm assuming. So you would want
| to reduce risk as much as possible because there are plenty
| of other things you're exposed to that increases cancer
| risk. Can't just look at one substance and it's risk alone.
| pc86 wrote:
| My point is there is a big difference between and X%
| increase in cancer being associated with 2-3 cans a day for
| a year compared to a decade. And who knows if 2-3 cans a
| day for a year is any safer than 1 can a day for 5 years or
| a can every other day for 20 years?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think hot water is also on the carcinogen list.
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I
| don't wind up with the same cancer risk?
|
| No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes.
|
| > Something's there, even if it's negligible.
|
| Then what is the point of wasting everyone's time with
| publicizing it?
|
| Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her
| kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them
| regularly eating sugary popsicles.
|
| For some reason, they think that a tiny bit of aspartame has a
| higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton
| of refined sugar.
| worik wrote:
| > For some reason, they think that a tiny bit of aspartame
| has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm
| than a ton of refined sugar.
|
| Or they think like me that when you taste sweet it should be
| sugar
|
| Human biology is very complex. What we do not know about it
| is more important than what we do know.
|
| I do not trust novel chemicals that trick a body into
| thinking it is getting sugar, but it's not.
|
| Better a bit of sugar for real than telling the body that it
| is getting a lot of sugar and giving it none
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Most people are choosing between "a lot of sugar" or "a
| little bit of low calorie sweetener". The former has known
| problems. The latter does not.
| habitue wrote:
| Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
| worik wrote:
| > Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
|
| Evidence?
| habitue wrote:
| all the bad parts of sugar are from the sugar part of it,
| not some magic poison added by "refining"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| True. But the decision is usually between consuming a food
| with low calorie sweetener or with added sugar, which is
| what I meant to compare.
| neaden wrote:
| I mean, yeah, don't drink 14 cans of any kind of soda a
| day.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > For some reason, she thinks that a tiny bit of aspartame
| has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm
| than a ton of refined sugar.
|
| Cancer isn't the only risk associated with aspartame.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Which are? I assume any molecule introduced to the body in
| excess will have a variety of effects. It just seems after
| decades, there seems to be nothing substantially risky
| about consuming any of the low calorie sweeteners in a non
| crazy amount.
|
| Especially since the alternative seems to be people
| consuming a ton of excess carbohydrates, which have near
| guaranteed risks.
| loeg wrote:
| I believe (acute) GI distress is relatively common at
| higher doses.
| chomp wrote:
| > No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. I don't think
| anyone is talking about diabetes.
|
| > For some reason, she thinks that a tiny bit of aspartame
| has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm
| than a ton of refined sugar.
|
| Agree that sugar is absolutely terrible for you, and
| aspartame is much less bad. What the WHO's talking about is
| strictly "possible" cancer risk. Based on my understanding,
| it's highly likely it's more worth it to face possible cancer
| risk thank the 100% definitive high risk of disease from
| sugar in the diet. The main thrust of my point is that
| there's no reason it shouldn't be on group 2B, and the FDA
| claiming otherwise is silly.
| habitue wrote:
| Yeah, there are absolutely people who drink this much
| aspartame.
|
| Probably we should think of its danger level like Advil: normal
| sparse amounts are fine. But if you are doing it constantly
| you're going to have issues.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It doesn't even mean that. 14 cans doesn't cause issues, it
| is when the FDA thinks risk kicks in. That might still be a 1
| in a million chance, after hitting the 14 can limit
| habitue wrote:
| fair
| aa_is_op wrote:
| Americans will whitelist everything for their big-pharma.
| monetus wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
| anonporridge wrote:
| Aspartame is a generic chemical and the US patent expired in
| 1992.
|
| Which big pharma companies are making big money off it?
| Simulacra wrote:
| *Be thankful for the American government, it's the best that
| money can buy."
|
| -Christopher Buckley
| r930 wrote:
| Aspartame increases dopamine precursors in the nervous system.
| Some people don't like to have people with lots of dopamine,
| gives one too many ideas.
| atlex2 wrote:
| Diet soda and sweeteners behind them are still a scam even if
| they don't "cause cancer." They're a scam because they still
| cause insulin response. Pancreas cranks out insulin after tasting
| the soda, and there no blood sugar to react with. My uncle drank
| tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn't mean diet
| soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn't loose
| weight by drinking the stuff.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer.
| Doesn't mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he
| definitely didn't loose weight by drinking the stuff._
|
| The point for most people of Diet Coke isn't to lose weight.
| It's to avoid the harm caused by sugar, while still having
| _something_ to drink. Diet sodas are definitely way, way better
| for anybody with sugar senstivities or diabetes. Plain water
| would be better, but that doesn 't make Diet Coke a "scam."
| worik wrote:
| > The point for most people of Diet Coke isn't to lose
| weight.
|
| Anecdotally I see different things.
|
| People overweight, or who fear that, use aspartame IMO
| Kirby64 wrote:
| Provide your sources here.
|
| Even if they do cause an insulin response (which a bunch of
| people have noted, is not true for many sweeteners), they do
| not have calories. If your uncle drank sugared soda instead,
| I'm certain he'd weigh significantly more than his life
| drinking diet soda.
|
| Diet sodas are a bit of a trap people fall into, though: if you
| switch to diet soda and don't also fix your otherwise unhealthy
| diet, then it won't really help you. It's better than drinking
| sugared soda, but not exactly the whole solution.
| voz_ wrote:
| Why is everyone spelling lose wrong?
| CPLX wrote:
| Is there any evidence for this. I see it constantly in internet
| arguments but never anywhere else.
| selectodude wrote:
| I have family that died of pancreatic cancer before aspartame
| existed. So there's a datapoint that undoes your data point.
| autoexec wrote:
| > They're a scam because they still cause insulin response.
|
| Some sweeteners can cause insulin spikes (sorbitol and xylitol
| for example), but aspartame does not. There's some evidence
| that it can still cause insulin resistance though.
| zwieback wrote:
| Is the science good on this claim? I keep hearing it and we
| should be more concerned about insulin spikes but is there
| really a correlation with sweeteners?
| zerocrates wrote:
| If diet soda really caused a big insulin response while
| containing no sugar, wouldn't we see things like a heavy
| binge on diet soda causing hypoglycemia? Which I've never
| heard of.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Erythritol doesn't cause insulin response.
|
| Stevia doesn't.
|
| Monk fruit extract doesn't.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-14 23:02 UTC)