this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
464 points (93.3% liked)

World News

32353 readers
333 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] null_@lemmy.world 117 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

There is a lot of public misunderstanding of the rodent studies that linked aspartame to cancer, which are very flawed and essentially come from a single Italian research group.

There is still no definitive link to cancer risk in humans so I would continue to be skeptical. The maximum recommended safe exposure for aspartame is the equivalent of 12 cans of coke, and the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).

Almost anything can cause long-term health risks and toxicity at such massive exposure levels.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspartame.html

Link to the free Pubmed link to one of the original source studies from 2008 so you can see their methodology and the absurdly massive exposure amounts needed to ovserve these effects:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17805418/

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I disagree with the 'massive' exposure 'needed' to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.

I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don't want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).

This is why I hate rodent studies. They always up the exposure to whatever they are testing to hyper-extreme limits. Then point their flawed results to the world and declare "See! X causes Y!"

There are even similar rat studies for marijuana that try to link it to cancer as well, despite the fact that zero people have actually died from weed. It's all overblown bullshit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] else@lemmy.fmhy.ml 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also note most people are choosing between sugar and aspartame or another sweetener, and sugar is pretty much categorically a health risk for humans.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Nail on the head. Aspartame is still better for you than super processed foods loaded with sugar. This reminds me of the big smear campaign against fat that the sugar industry engineered to take the heat off of themselves way back when

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Wildchandelure@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] s6original@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago (16 children)

I don't think you can put "the" before WHO unless Roger Daltrey approves it.

I worry about a lot of the additives used today. Some products will say "no sugar added" but will include some artificial sweetener that you only see in the fine print.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I worry about the "natural" sugar alternatives. We all know that aspartame is safe, it's been researched about as extensively as it can be. It only starts to be a concern when you're drinking 2 dozen diets sodas daily.

But people give "natural" a pass for some reason.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Natural is always good, my cereal has natural uranium for a spicy natural alternative to sugar. It's totally safe.

(For legal purposes, this comment is a joke)

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] outbound@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

As a Type II diabetic:

fuck

As a punk:

All I wanted was a Pepsi
Just one Pepsi

*Diet Pepsi contains sucralose, not aspertame, so I guess I'm good (for now)

[–] Kuinox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Newspaper recently said sucralose cause DNA damage.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Hazzardis@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Like how cancerous is it? Considering the amount of diet pop my family consumes…I’m kinda worried

[–] Fingerthief@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I’m pretty sure the last I read about this it was an absurd concentration that showed to potentially cause cancer. Nothing a human could drink in such concentrations.

That being said maybe that’s changed very very recently, I’ll be interested to see what their actual findings are.

A lot of things potentially cause cancer in huge concentrations.

Edit - From what I’ve read aspartame would be considered a possible carcinogen in the same class of Coffee. That doesn’t make quite the same headline though hah!

[–] PunchEnergy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

It doesn't even take that much sunlight really.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn't take much for the WHO to classify something as a possible carcinogen.

Aspartame is now in the same risk category as cell phones, kimchee, and carpentry. And still considered less carcinogenic than meat, fried foods, hot beverages, and working a night shift.

[–] DrinkBoba@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not gonna preach or anything but that stuff is trash. You guys should quit honestly. I “reset” my tastes to less sweet stuff over time and it’s incredible how different things taste after you lose the expectations they should be sweet to be delicious.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

That will be the most important factor: the quantity needed to be harmful.

If it's the equivalent of 30 cans of diet cola a day, this is a non-issue. They will give those details when they release the report.

[–] fluke@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aspartame has been in common usage as a sugar alternative for literally decades.

If it was harmful or potent enough to be dangerous on a public or individual health risk then we would have certainly known about it by now. At this stage, even WHO, are saying it's needed in HUGE concentrations.

Diet sodas aren't the only things that we consume that contains aspartame. And aspartame isn't the only thing we're exposed to that has been linked to cancer and other deseases.

Just get on with life, enjoy what you enjoy in moderation. Don't put too much thought into it otherwise you'll just end up living in fear and avoiding everything.

[–] sweBers@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was my gut reaction, but that logic also perpetuated leaded fuel.

[–] fluke@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lead's affects were well known, just ignored.

Aspartame is no different to any other food or substance we're exposed to. You can't buy anything in California that's doesn't have the 'Known to cause cancer' label on it.

Honestly, the rise in the diagnosis of cancer in industrial humans is a result of living longer and not being killed by something else.

Basically, what I'm saying is that as long as you live in moderation and overall healthy, a couple of pints of Diet Cola a day or a bottle of wine on a weekend isn't going to kill you.

From annectdotal experience, the people who get the most knotted up about this stuff probably sit down all day and eat absolute crap. The aspartame is not the thing to worry about in that equation.

[–] whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Not cancerous whatsoever. It's approved for use worldwide and it's one of the most studied additives on the planet.

It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.

Like the other "scary" "it causes cancer" studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it's carcinogenic.

Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human's bodyweight.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] puppet@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

I could be wrong, and I’m too lazy to Google at the moment, but I swore this was made public information long ago. When I was young, aspartame was being phased out in favor of sucralose. I recall hearing stories about aspartame being banned in other countries as a child.

[–] erre@feddit.win 22 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Hopefully there's more research done. It doesn't sound like it's "absolutely carcinogenic".

The "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with using mobile phones are "possibly cancer-causing". Like aspartame, this means there is either limited evidence they can cause cancer in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, or strong evidence about the characteristics.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stuff that has been sweetened by it kind of taste like there is something wrong. Yet still it tastes decent enough and much better than stevia. I would rather have option to drink stuff that just outright hasnt been sweetened at all.

[–] AcidOctopus@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Embrace water. Become a hydro homie.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Indie@lemmy.fmhy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Didn't they suggest that aspartame could cause cancer way back in the late 80s or early 90s?

I remember growing up hearing about something like that when sweet and low was the go to sugar.

It seemed to kind of just fall of the face of the earth and is resurfacing now?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Saccharine (Sweet 'n Low) was the big scare back then.

It turned out it did cause cancer... in rats... if you force fed them some crazy amount like 400x normal.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185898/

"humans would need to drink the equivalent of 800 twelve-ounce diet sodas with saccharin daily to reach the carcinogenic doses that induced rat bladder cancer."

[–] Boeman@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

So... The typical American amount.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Dammit… I’ve been drinking that shit every day for years. I actually crave the flavor of it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›