World News

22 readers

1 users here now

News from around the world!

founded 1 year ago

Aspartame a possible carcinogen, WHO cancer research agency expected to say (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

One of the world's most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen.

(Edit- Question from OP: downvoters, do you not want me to post stories like this, or are you expressing disagreement with some of the people in the report?)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I actually am.

Everyone has been saying it is for years, but I was never able to find any hard evidence despite it being the subject of numerous studies.

I feel kind of naive now.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's because there hasn't really been any hard evidence. From the article itself:

It has four different levels of classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than how dangerous a substance is.

"Probably carcinogenic" is thus the least supported one one can make a ruling with.

Then it all depends on the studies themselves too. Like one study on sunscreens found that oxybenzone caused endocrine disruptions in mice; when force-fed unrealistic amounts of it. Like what does that even tell us? Don't compulsively eat sunscreen, you could get sick?

The chemical was prohibited nonetheless, because generally a "better safe than sorry" approach is taken. These corporations don't want to face massive class-action lawsuits, so you can expect aspartame to be phased out.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Probably carcinogenic" is thus the least supported one one can make a ruling with.

gonna go ahead and assume you meant "possibly" carcinogenic?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ack, good catch! Thank you!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Thanks for the explanation! I guess it does make sense to use the precautionary principle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are circumstances where the precautionary principle is good to apply. But overuse of it has really bad cumulative consequences.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think that would depend on magnitude if probability was low or indeterminate?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's worth pointing out that red meat is one step higher on the list as a probable carcinogen (Class 2A vs Class 2B), as is drinking liquids above 65 C.

One step higher in Class 1 is, among others things, the pill.