It uncovered eight WHO panelists involved with assessing safe levels of aspartame consumption who are beverage industry consultants who currently or previously worked with the alleged Coke front group, International Life Sciences Institute (Ilsi).

Their involvement in developing intake guidelines represents “an obvious conflict of interest”, said Gary Ruskin, US Right-To-Know’s executive director. “Because of this conflict of interest, [the daily intake] conclusions about aspartame are not credible, and the public should not rely on them,” he added.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
187 points

We’ve studied this chemical literally more than any other food additive and there’s still nothing definitive. Also mice are not a good stand-in for humans. They are really only used for acute toxicity and such.

permalink
report
reply
60 points

But the mice genetically predisposed to getting tumors got tumors. What more proof do you need?

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

It’s official: Cancer causes cancer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

One step closer cancer causing mice

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Fun fact. A potential side effect of many cancer treatments is… cancer

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

How hecking cancerous cancer is?

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

I honestly have no clue on the studies but I can’t drink anything with aspartame in it at all, even a single sip bloats me and screws up my bowel movements hard. It might just be an allergy but it took me 3 years to find the cause and I’m happy to avoid it that’s for sure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

I believe there are studies showing it messes with gut bacteria. Seems consistent with what you describe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

yeah the occasional non-cancer side effects are well known by now but weirdly enough they just can’t seem to find anything conclusive on whether it causes cancer or not…

At this point I’m willing to accuse the sugar lobby for trying to sabotage this chemical out of the market

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not aspartame. The study, it’s mainly one, showed that sucralose and saccharin did just that. But aspartame had no effect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I get the worst migraines from the heavy concentrated juices that use aspartame instead of sugar. And I mean two to three days of constant head pounding, I stopped drinking the “sugar free” ones and I have not had a migraine ever since.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Migraine or headache?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I get this weird ass headache from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Even if aspartame does cause cancer you get the choice of cancer or diabetes when you drink cola, so whatever. Just don’t drink it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

My gripe is that swapping out sugars for fake ones doesn’t seem healthy long term regardless of any direct impact aspartame itself may have. Just have less sugar imo.

Edit: didn’t realise how controversial that soft opinion would be lol. Look, drink what you want but I’m going to stick with water unless it’s a treat. I know it’s not healthy for me to scratch the dopamine itch with sugary tasting treats all the time; fake sugar or not. My perspective is less about trying to say, diet soda is bad but that there must be better alternatives to suggest than just sweetener filled copies?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How do you mean?

I’ve heard of things like the sensation of sweetness being decoupled from satiation leading to a greater urge for sweetness in compensation, but at least personally that’s not happening to me lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s pretty acidic which sucks for your teeth for one but that wasn’t what I was trying to say

Yeah I just really mean as a diet as a whole though. If you have an issue with sugar intake then you’re probs drinking way too much sugary drinks. To suggest just swapping out sugars for fake ones I don’t think is best choice to suggest for most people.

I think there’s probably tons of other issues too just aside from the excess glucose. So fix the diet not the sugar.

Yeah I agree it’s fine that a most of these chemicals are safe in moderation and well researched. My gripe is the hot swap fix-all attitude that people can take from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

I think what they mean is we shouldn’t encourage people to drink what is essentially candy water. Doesn’t matter if it has sugar or aspartame. It’s still candy

Replacing an unhealthy habit with a less unhealthy habit is still unhealthy (written as I drink a Dr Pepper zero)

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

And even if it’s true, it means you’ll eat the sugar instead of drinking it, and then you’ll be able to ingest less sugar before feeling full, plus you probably get some fibre with it as well which helps a lot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

That’s not what this is saying. This is saying the studies saying it IS harmful were real, and the part saying “it’s probably safe in small amounts” was industry-influenced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

No, this is just saying the safe dosage level was biased by people from the industry being on that particular panel.

Despite the IARC’s new designation, the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which determines safe doses of food additives, did not change its recommendation for daily intake of aspartame. JECFA still says that consuming 40 milligrams of aspartame per every 1 kilogram of body weight (about 2.2 pounds) per day is acceptable, according to a news release.

This is just 1 panel that determined the safe dosage level. This does not affect the findings of the study at all which concluded that aspartame is “possibly carcinogenic to humans” but that “We don’t know enough about the possible link between aspartame and cancer, but we can’t ignore that there’s something going on”

So they haven’t even found a definitive link or even said it’s definitively dangerous. And the 40 milligrams per 1 kilogram of body weight is the same as the recommendation from the FDA.

Also the thing it is replacing, sugar, IS known to cause cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. So take that as you will.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That last bit is what people always seem to miss.

Getting hit in the head with a branch is bad for you, but it’s less bad for you than a bullet.

In the end, you need to compare the two risks, and not decide “a is bad, no need to look at b”

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I don’t much care what one study is saying. We’ve studied this chemical so much and we still have no conclusive proof it’s harmful. At some point you really gotta focus money elsewhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 5.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 124K

    Comments