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:
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.
the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.
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.
In rats! You can’t just multiple a rat study by body weight and expect it to always correlate. That’s why studies are done in larger animals, and sometimes the concept just dies there.
A single study is a statistic. Until they duplicate the results multiple times, and upgrade to monkeys, pigs, or (in a safe way) humans, this is all just noise.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people.
It would lead to death, but not to cancer. Not everything is carcinogenic, even with high exposure. Causing death by a method other than cancer doesn’t make it carcinogenic.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.
This is how science is done friend. You make no assumptions. You have reason to believe a theory predicts a testable outcome? You test it. Not everything causes cancer. Pure air doesn’t… Clean water doesn’t… The research shows us Aspartame does indeed have carcinogenic effects in rats. Now we know this, and the result can be used to support applications for more costly research using subjects much more similar to our anatomy because if it is carcinogenic in one mammal, it probably is carcinogenic in others.
You call the study flawed when it looks perfectly fine to me for the purpose it was designed for. It shows it is carcinogenic in the mammal it was tested on at dosage levels that translate to non-‘massive’, quite reasonable consumption rates for humans. As such, it warrants concern and all these claims by the European and US Food Agencies saying ‘we did 100s of studies decades ago and it is fine trust me bro’ is not enough. I’m not arguing this one study proves Aspartame causes cancer in humans. I’m saying your particular criticisms of it are unfounded as is your confidence that Aspartame is non-carcinogenic. You cite FDA claims ‘Aspartame is safe’ but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like “don’t feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine”, “methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there”, and ‘we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)’ https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf
Looks to me like somebody did more research and found contradictory results otherwise why would WHO say they are going to do this?
I’m going to agree with Burstar here - if you’re setting out to prove that something is possible, you’re going to give it the best chance you can. Once you know its possible (whether its something like using an arduino to simulate an old price of hardware, or if a compound can cause cancer), you go and refine it down.
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.
Dude have you seen how many diet Cokes people drink? Liters and liters daily. Not excessive at all honestly considering LifeTime total exposure
Im a chemist by trade. This is actually chemically very simple. I only looked deeply into Sucralose Splenda. So I’ll discuss that
These have Chlorine molecules. A very electrophilic element even in a chemical bond. Meaning it can cause reactions in other molecules very easily. Sucralose has Three Chlorines. If it touches DNA it’s bad business man.
I love diet Coke btw lol I could drink 5 gallons right now idk I smoke cigs. But don’t sugar coat it
Table salt has more chlorine by mass than sucralose. Moreover, in your body, table salt dissociates into a chlorine ion, whereas in sucralose it’s covalently bonded into the molecular structure. That’s not to say that it is suddenly nonreactive, but being covalently bonded tempers some of it’s electron craving, so to speak. By your logic, table salt should be orders of magnitude more dangerous than sucralose (it’s not).
Edit to add: Do you know of any mechanism by which sucralose could cross the nuclear membrane? If not, sucralose isn’t going to be touching DNA at all. It could touch some form of RNA in the cytoplasm, which isn’t necessarily innocent, but it’s not going to be touching the DNA. That means it won’t cause long-term genetic changes or damage; any damage it caused would be transitory to the working set of RNA and that damage would be gone when that RNA was processed/destroyed.
You are saying that sucralose (or a metabolite thereof) could alkylate DNA - and theoretically proteins too - correct? Like what sulfur mustard gas does?
I did a quick search and couldn’t find any papers demonstrating a mechanism of action for that, although I skimmed a few that postulated that a dichlorinated hydrolysis product might be the true carcinogenic agent. Do you know of any studies that demonstrate that the alkylation can happen, either in vitro or (ideally) in vivo? Or maybe some better search terms to use, that could be my issue…
I am truly curious about this, I never knew the chemical structure of sucralose until I read your comment and subsequently looked it up.
Also note most people are choosing between sugar and aspartame or another sweetener, and sugar is pretty much categorically a health risk for humans.
Is that a measurement relative to mass/size? Because if not, you’d need to consume a shitload of it to really do anything.
There’s a ton of studies with these problems. Researchers simply engrossing the test subject in the material until something bad happens. Unless you’re researching on a test group of humans, then suddenly all the levels are actually less than typical.
It all depends if you’re looking to prove that it’s harmful or not. Want to find it’s harmful? Get a bunch of mice and expose them to as much of whatever substance you need to in order to find a problem… Want to prove something is safe, set up a “double blind” study of the effects on humans, and give half of them regulated and limited doses of it for weeks or months until you can convince everyone that “nothing bad happened”.
I have a problem with research done in either way. Researchers should be neutral, and just test and let the data speak for itself. (With limited interpretation for the people who read it)
Instead, almost all research is funded by someone with an agenda who is trying to find out if x is good/bad, and prove or disprove a specific stance. Argh
Still proves it may cause cancer, the only thing seriously in question is the dose. Seemingly nobody knows what a safe upper bound is for any population.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
So then buy unsweetened tea. We already have a term for things that aren’t sweet.
https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Leaf-Unsweetened-Brewed-Calories/dp/B015Z6WJDY/
I seriously don’t understand why you want the “no sugar added” label to have factually incorrect requirements.
No sugar added should mean no sweeteners added, but that’s not the case unfortunately.
No sugar added usually just means it’s full of sugar originally found in the product. A “no sugar added” apple juice will still have an insanely unhealthy amount of sugar.
I don’t know why you think it should mean no sweeteners. (most) sweeteners are categorically not sugar. If you want something not sweet, the label you’re looking for is “unsweetened”.
Besides, sugar is much worse for you than any artificial sweetener.
“Unsweetened” means no sweeteners added. “No sugar added” means no sugars, but maybe other sweeteners.
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)
Like how cancerous is it? Considering the amount of diet pop my family consumes…I’m kinda worried
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!
I figured if it was really all that bad it would have been banned a long time ago.
Lead was used way past discovering it was dangerous, and is still used enough to cause problems in specific populations. Just like cigarettes. If there is a large moneymaking industry and it suddenly comes to light that what it is producing is dangerous, they have a lot of motivation to put money behind keeping that knowledge from getting out or, when it does, keep it from affecting law. They lobby/bribe, they abuse the legal system, whatever they can to avoid going under. As such, it’s not safe to assume that something is not dangerous simply because it hasn’t been banned.
I’ve been downwind of Canada on and off the last few weeks, it hurts to be outdoors
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.
I eat my morning oats with unsweetened soy milk and cow’s milk now tastes like candy to me.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t panic until the report officially locked out. We are very certain that smoking and pork cause cancer, but smoking has a huge possibility of lung cancer while pork only increases your chances of cancer by something like 20%. This could be one of those “We are 99.999% certain that it increases your risk by 10%” sort of things.
