science

14638 readers

283 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

162

The WHO declared aspartame "possibly" causes cancer. Here’s what that means. | Vox (www.vox.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago

Found the aspartame spokesperson.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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