• gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    999 months ago

    Aspertame is the most-tested food additive ever. There has never been proven any causal link to cancer, not in the decades anyone has tried, and there still hasn’t— not even in this year-old article.

      • gregorum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There are other things in that which are bad for you.

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            119 months ago

            I would if I weren’t going to bed. Feel free to ignore me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -5
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Another straw man.

                straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

                The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4]

      • partial_accumen
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        The “zero” beverages are usually sweetened with Sucrolose primarily. Not Aspertame. Though I’ve seen some with primarily Sucrolose and also Aspertame as a secondary ingredient.

        • The original selling point was partly that it wasn’t aspartame, but I think that’s changing to the mixture since some people react poorly to sucrolose.

          • partial_accumen
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            The original selling point was partly that it wasn’t aspartame,

            Was it? I thought it was just an angle to use a better tasting sweetener than Aspertame. Sucrolose tastes much closer to sugar than Aspertame does, probably because Sucrolose’s chemical structure is very close to sucrose.

    • ProdigalFrogOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I feel like this is a difficult subject, since there’s two sides that are willing to pour money into research that’s biased one way or the other (Big sugar vs the artificial sweeteners).

      The article is perhaps advocating for an overly cautious position. Traditionally, I’ve been pro-artificial sweeteners, and considered aspartame quite safe, but specifically, this part in the article:

      the IARC is more selective in its use of unpublished, confidential commercial data, and it takes greater care to exclude people with conflicts of interest from contributing to its evaluations.

      A few years ago, Millstone and a co-author looked closely at how the European Food Safety Authority had weighed the 154 studies on aspartame safety when it looked to assess the product in 2013. About half of the studies favored aspartame’s safety and about half indicated it might do harm.

      The agency had judged all of the harm-suggesting studies — but only a quarter of the safety-affirming studies — to be “unreliable,” wrote the authors. And the agency had applied looser quality standards to the studies suggesting safety than it had to the studies suggesting harm. Agency reviewers pushed back against Millstone’s assessment. And in any case, aspartame has remained on the European market.

      Was a little concerning.

      The conflict of interest even more so:

      The FDA has rules about who can serve on its advisory committees that are aimed at preventing conflicts of interest. However, a recent investigation by ProPublica found that consultants employed by McKinsey worked for the FDA on drug safety monitoring projects while simultaneously working for pharmaceutical companies directly affected by those projects.

      • gregorum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        As much as you may try to use a straw man to shift the discussion to governing or regulatory agencies, there is still no actual evidence linking aspartame to harmful effects in humans when used as a food additive.

        Different agencies and studies can irresponsibly throw around words like “maybe” and “possibly” and “might”, but until there’s any real evidence linking aspartame’s use as a sweetener to an illness in a human, then it’s nothing but fear-mongering.

        • ProdigalFrogOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t believe I’m straw manning, and I think your characterization of that is a little unwarranted.

          There is no study that conclusively points to it being harmful, that is true. But when there’s a lot of money on the line and conflicts of interest start getting involved, I don’t think it’s entirely out of the question to be at least slightly wary of the ‘official’ recommendation from a verifiably financially biased institution. Regular folk aren’t going to research all 154 studies on a single sweetener, making them inherently reliant on institutions (who can do meta studies) for advice. It’s the quintessential laymen’s quandary.

          The EU seems to be, at least nowadays, a more trustworthy source regarding food safety, and are certainly more willing to reverse previously incorrect assumptions, such as when they reversed the ban on Cyclamate sweetener when it was found to be safe (yet it remains banned in the US). They, so far, also deem aspartame safe, and it’s difficult to see how exactly it could be dangerous.

          Is it safer than sugar, where there are known dangers? I think so, I’d pick a diet soda over a sugar-based one any day. But I think it’s healthy to at least attempt to ensure the answer recommended to us is as unbiased as possible.

          By the way, the article itself doesn’t even suggest that aspertame is that dangerous:

          “My big concern is that I don’t want people saying, ‘Oh my gosh, I’ve got to stop diet sodas, I’m gonna get sugared sodas,’ and then they start drinking those and gain weight, which we know is one of the major cancer risks,” said Bevers. “And that has solid data.” A better outcome of the recommendation would be if people who drink a ton of diet soda replaced some of it with water.

          I think the takeaway from this article should be “Aspartame is probably pretty safe, but holy shit one of the main institutions we have in charge of determining that, along with a bunch of other substances, is basically corporate captured, so get your advice elsewhere.”

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Aspartame has been tested by far more than just the FDA and WHO, and nobody has ever found any link to any illness in humans, not ever.

            And if you have any, you’d be the first.

            It’s a straw man to argue your “uncomfortableness” with regulatory agencies as a reason not to trust aspartame. In fact, quite the opposite, as it’s the WHO who is doing the fearmongering.

            And comparing it to any other approval processes is just a false equivalence.

        • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          69 months ago

          And there are many daily consumed food items (processed food, alcohol, …) that are known to cause cancer but nobody tries to regulate those.

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -5
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            You need to pay more attention

            Edit: downvoted for pointing out the commentor needs to pay more attention because those things, in fact, are regulated

        • ProdigalFrogOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Coke is downstream of Sugar and Artificial sweetener manufacturers. Coke doesn’t care what sweetener you prefer in their products as long as they make a profit.

          Aspertame was owned by Nutrasweet, where as big sugar, is, well, sugar cane and sugar beet plantation owners and processors.

          Both of them were competing with each other for adoption in products and when sold direct to consumer (I.e, equal). They both had a vested interest in slandering the other.

          See this as an example.

    • ProdigalFrogOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      269 months ago

      The article says that sugar based drinks are far worse for your health than diet versions.

      • BraveSirZaphod
        link
        fedilink
        249 months ago

        Your average pseudoscience obsessed health hobbyist is never going to notice that particular detail though.

      • @Marcbmann@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        59 months ago

        What kind of sugar? High fructose corn syrup or sugar?

        HFCS is metabolized in the liver making it far more damaging to the body. And soda that uses real sugar typically has a lower sugar content. Soda with real sugar also imparts a feeling of fullness, typically resulting in people drinking less.

        • @Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I am going to need a source that HFCS is worse than sucrose for your liver.

          People hear “high fructose” in High Fructose Corn Syrup and assume it’s in comparison to other sugars, it is not. High Fructose corn syrup is a name to differentiate it from regular corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose.

          Let’s look at the real differences between HFCS and sucrose or table sugar. Sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose. HFCS is usually 55% fructose in beverages and 42% in most other HCFS sweetened products. This means that typically the High Fructose corn syrup has less fructose than regular sugar.

          You could focus on beverages, but 5% isn’t a huge difference, and if your going to talk about the dangers of sugary beverages it’s always important to remind people that fruit juice has A LOT of fructose (go figure).

          Sugar itself is the problem, monitor intake. HCFS is only an issue because the price drove down the cost of sweetening foods to everyone’s detriment.

          • @Marcbmann@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            59 months ago

            My brother in Christ, why is sucrose bad for your liver? Because it is metabolized into glucose and… Fructose

            The metabolism of sucrose into glucose and fructose happens in the small intestines. Fructose enters the bloodstream and is metabolized by the liver.

          • @EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            39 months ago

            (Here’s a study on the liver effects.)[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549781/]

            It doesn’t specifically say that fructose has a worse effect on the liver than sucrose, but it does say that fructose is 2x sweeter than glucose, which makes it more addicting, which causes you to drink more because you crave it. So I went looking up sweetness scales and fructose is also sweeter than sucrose (which is still sweeter than glucose), sometimes by a significant margin.

            So if both are bad on the liver, fructose could possibly be worse because of a higher level of addiction due to sweetness level, which causes you to consume more than you might with just sucrose.

  • @garretble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Here’s another year old article that came out in response to this.

    TLDR: You should not worry, and the only people who might think about worrying are those drinking 12 cans of diet soda a day — so basically no one.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/13/1187284010/world-health-organization-is-aspartame-carcinogenic

    “Our results do not indicate that occasional consumption should pose a risk to most consumers,” said Dr. Francesco Branca, director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at the WHO, during a press conference in Geneva. He said the problem is for “high consumers” of diet soda or other foods that contain aspartame. “We have, in a sense, raised a flag here,” Branca said, and he called for more research.

    But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says it disagrees with this new classification, pointing to evidence of safety. In a written statement, an FDA official told NPR that aspartame being labeled by the WHO “as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ does not mean that aspartame is actually linked to cancer.”

    The WHO has long set the acceptable daily intake, or ADI, of aspartame at a maximum of 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. So, a person who weighs 60 kilograms (about 130 pounds), could consume up to 2,400 milligrams per day, which is roughly equivalent to 12 cans of Diet Coke — much higher than most people consume.

    • @Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      139 months ago

      I beg to differ I know for fact my dad drinks 12 cans or more a day. Hell I did at one time but with regular Dr Pepper. It not hard to go through a 12oz can of soda.

      • edric
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 months ago

        I have a coworker who has a 1.5L bottle of coke zero beside him everyday.

        • @Fredselfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          How big is said coworker? And I remember working in call center when I was younger and always having a 20oz bottle of soda. Looking back I know how dumb that was, but shit I smoked cigarettes back then too so wasn’t all they bright.

        • @Muscar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          09 months ago

          The few people I’ve known that would drink that much daily drink diet only. It has been pretty obvious throughout my life that people who have no self-control are more likely to go for things like diet sodas and “lite” whatever. I hate sweeteners, I can’t stand diet anything both because it tastes bad to me and it makes me feel ill, but to me it still seems like it would be easier to drink 12 cans of diet soda than the same amount of “normal” soda. It’s a disgusting amount either way.

    • @werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      49 months ago

      In Mexico and other countries there are cities where you cannot drink the water so you end up drinking soda your entire life. Coca-Cola buys the good water and pollutes the rest so that they are the only safe drinking option.

  • @weariedfae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    279 months ago

    I came in here ready to defend delicious aspartame from people who aren’t science literate and was surprised to see many really good arguments and comments already posted. Lemmy, you’re pretty cool as a community right now.

  • @Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    219 months ago

    Realistically what it means is that millions of people will react with “meh, still gonna use it.” I mean, have you met humans? We knew lead was toxic since at least the Roman era, but that didn’t stop us from using it in everything - including food and drink.

    • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The difference is that you can completely avoid lead poisoning if you eliminate exposure to lead, but you can’t completely avoid cancer even if you eliminate exposure to carcinogens.

      And eliminating exposure to aspartame would have only a minimal effect, at best, on your overall risk of cancer.

    • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      99 months ago

      And they’ll do that while standing in bright sunlight without sunscreen, drinking beer, eating red meat, processed food, candy with real sugar and driving in fossil fuel cars which are in the same or higher category of cancer risks.

    • ProdigalFrogOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      That was genuinely an excellent video, thanks for sharing. :)

      • Rei
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        That’s cool. I just suggested the Ann Reardon video because she’s addressing the findings from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer that’s also mentioned in this article.

    • ProdigalFrogOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      EDIT: This is, in fact, false information! Please refer to @FlowVoid@lemmy.world’s comment for the facts.

      Mexican coke has been found to have no sugar in it, it also uses High Fructose Corn Syrup.

      Any flavor enhancement over regular coke appears to be placebo, possibly an effect of the glass bottle.

        • ProdigalFrogOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The study he references suggests that Coca-cola is essentially lying, because no one other than that study bothered to test if there was Sugar or HFCS in the soda labeled with Cane Sugar.

          Considering Coca-Cola is a company known for being willing to murder union organizers, I don’t think it’s a stretch that they’d lie about that for profits.

          • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            49 months ago

            The study he references also did not bother to test for sugar, only fructose.

            When they later repeated their analysis, they found that Mexican Coca Cola actually does contain sugar, unlike American Coca Cola.

      • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The paper cited in that video had serious flaws in their methodology.

        A repeat analysis by the same group found that Mexican Coca Cola actually does contain table sugar (sucrose) as well as fructose, whereas American Coca Cola contains no table sugar and more fructose than the Mexican version.

        • ProdigalFrogOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 months ago

          Cheers for that information! I’ve corrected my post to reflect this.

  • @BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    One thing I have observed with sodas containing aspartame, is the short shelf life, I think normally they give sodas 1 year but after 6 months the soda starts having an off taste that only gets stronger.

    I have tried drinking a can of zero that was 2 years past the expiration date, and it tasted like cat piss.

    Ps: I guess the aspartame molecules are not very stable in a soda mix?

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      229 months ago

      There’s still no evidence that it does. Unless, perhaps, you’re injecting gigantic amounts of it into rats or something. But drinking it in a soda? Nobody’s ever proved any evidence that it’s anything but safe.

        • 100
          link
          fedilink
          59 months ago

          just breathing air in a city is dangerous

        • gregorum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It isn’t dangerous at all when used as a food additive. And if you have evidence to the contrary, you’d be the first ever to find it.

  • @Haagel@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    -139 months ago

    I never trusted the stuff. We use to say this matter-of-factly when I was a kid, about thirty years ago. I’m glad to see that my unfounded confidence and speculation turned out to be right!

    • @weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      219 months ago

      Ehhh, not so much. Honestly the rating for carcinogenic substances is very shaky and can be very misleading. Like many things, poison depends on the dose and the same with carcinogens. Bacon is a group 1 carcinogen, and cigarettes are a group 1 carcinogen. Despite the same rating, cigarettes are BY FAR much more carcinogenic.

      For group 2b “possible carcinogens”, it usually coincides with the frequency of the product. For this rating they review what a cancer victim typically eats/consumes/interacts with. Aspartame and many other ingredients, are labeled as possibly carcinogenic, as many victims have eaten them, but there is no strong correlation.

      The problem is however, many of these ingredients are so common that almost everybody eats them. It’s like saying “everybody who drinks water dies, it’s poisonous!”.

    • @doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      89 months ago

      Not exactly. In this context “possibly causes cancer” translates to something like ‘we have no credible evidence that it does, but we can’t prove that it doesn’t.’

    • @Mereo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      49 months ago

      In the early days of YouTube, after I saw a video where they boiled a can of Coke and found 13 spoons of sugar. I stopped drinking that stuff. Aspartame or not, I’d rather drink water.

      • 100
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        yeah def dont drink calories for no reason especially this stuff

    • @Haagel@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      19 months ago

      Damn. I’ve got the Mountain Dew drinkers riled up.

      “Possibly causes cancer” is sufficient for me to never the touch the stuff. Please stop drinking these things. They’re literally addictive.