Misleading title. They're about to declare it as possibly cancerous. Not fully cancerous. And if anything this is just to get even more research into it.

Aspartame is in a lot of things, mainly sodas and gum, but you'd have to consume a lot of the stuff beyond a human limit really.

I do think this may put a dent in sugar free products assuming it gets declared as such.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 5 points 1 year ago

Probably just enough for California to give it that label, and that's about it.

I hate the chemical aftertaste of artificial sweeteners anyway.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

There's still other zero calorie sweeteners though. Sucralose, stevia, saccharine, Monk fruit extract, etc.

[–] SweetBilliam@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Every paragraph of that article got less and less certain about the results. Someday I'd love to be able to trust the headline.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They’re about to declare it as possibly cancerous. Not fully cancerous.

What do you mean by this? Everything that can cause cancer is declared "possibly cancerous"; it depends on dose and exposure. Nothing is "fully cancerous" for whatever that might even mean. You can be exposed to radiation and either get cancer or not; it depends on the dose. Would you call radiation "possibly cancerous", or "fully cancerous"?

Analagously, most bacteria can cause infections but they don't always in everyone. So to label a bacteria as purely benign or purely dangerous is just as silly as trying to make a distinction between "possibly cancerous" and "fully cancerous".

Aspartame is in a lot of things, mainly sodas and gum, but you’d have to consume a lot of the stuff beyond a human limit really.

And if someone wants to minimize their risk of cancer, they should be able to make informed decisions. Knowing that at particular food-additive has higher-than-baseline chances of causing cancer allows someone with a different risk-aversion profile to make decisions wisely. If you don't mind the incidence rate at the dose you consume it at, that's fine as well. But it is useful to have it be public knowledge if something is potentially cancer-causing.

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

It means that Aspartame is going to be added to the “Group 2B” classification list. It’s worth noting that “Red Meat” and “Alcohol” are in the much more severe “Group 1” list, so you should probably give up steak and beer before you ditch your favorite diet soda.

[–] whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

The difference between "possibly cancerous" and "fully cancerous" is that the former is not confirmed to have the property of causing cancer.

Radiation on the other hand is known to be carcinogenic.

To use your analogy, we know that there are bacteria that cause infections and bacteria that are harmless to humans. Let's say we have bacteria A that is known to cause infection but not always in everyone. Then we have a bacteria B, which is potentially able to cause infection. We don't know for certain that it can, but we also don't know that it can't.

And yes, it's a pretty fucking useless designation, and WHO is wasting everyone's time and causing undue panic. Let's not forget how they completely fucked the world with their atrocious handing of Covid in the early stages of the outbreak.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's different classes of cancer-causing compounds. Alcohol, for example, has the highest classification, meaning there is indisputable evidence exposure increases the risk of certain cancers. Then you have decreasing strength of evidence from there.

[–] Wildchandelure@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

There's a scale. I wouldn't put aspartame on the same level as smoking for it's chances of causing cancer. That's what i mean. I guess "fully Cancerous" isnt really a good way of putting it into words.

It doesn't outright cause cancer like the title implies. By saying it causes cancer in the title is misleading. There's very little evidence that supports that, and I see them only doing this considering the concerns around it and more research.

I'm absolutely for people knowing this information and making informed decisions if they want to stay away from it or keep using it. That's all on them.

Should've titled it something more like "WHO is about to rule aspartame as 'possibly cancerous.' Here's what that tells you"