News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
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.
But the mice genetically predisposed to getting tumors got tumors. What more proof do you need?
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.
I believe there are studies showing it messes with gut bacteria. Seems consistent with what you describe.
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
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.
Okay, corruption like that should be corrected. Regardless, there's no scientific evidence that aspartame is harmful. Let alone a biochemical reason for why a dipeptide of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, that dissociates in the stomach into its constituent components and some byproducts would be harmful in the first place.
Unless you have phenylketonuria, but you have much bigger problems in that case and, if that is the case for you, kudos on being at an age and capability to read and understand this post, you are incredible.
Edit: Also, just noticed the part about US Right To Know, which is a well known anti-science group that's been pushing pseudoscience and fearmongering about other topics, such as biotechnology, for years. So them being involved here raises questions.
I want to get rid of it because I want a non sugar coke that doesn't taste like burned tar soaked in urine
Then drink the Diet Coke with Splenda one? There's also Coke Life that has stevia instead. They basically made sure they have a version with each type of sweetener.
I was under the impression the research showed that there was a risk but you needed to consume an exorbitant amount to get there. Around 20+ cans of coke a day which the majority of people don’t do.
The World Health Organization said it was safe up to a certain level. The people in the WHO who said that work for Coca-Cola.
This means we can't rely on the recommendation, and the actual "safe" amount may be much lower than that. The article goes into good depth and gives counterarguments too.
It is important to note that in reality there is no safe amount for a carcinogen. Sometimes a threshold is set to reduce risk to a reasonable amount in necessary workplace exposure or medical treatments.
The truth is, I think we'll all eventually realize any sweetener should be seen as candy, not a thirst quencher.
Thank you being basically the only person in the thread who actually read the article.
The part where they said "aspartame is probably bad" wasn't the corrupt part. The corrupt part was when they put an addendum saying "a little bit of cancer is okay as a treat"
Don't want to share my life story, but I did for a time, got to about a twelve pack and a half a day of diet coke when I was 20.
My reward was not weight loss, but an a-fib. and half a life expectancy.
I don't blame the diet coke because I was the one buying and drinking it. But it is important people understand that something is wrong in that stuff.
Just as I wouldn't blame cigarettes for giving me lung cancer, but I would want others to know it can.
Apart from the aspartame, that's also like 900mg of caffeine a day, which is over twice the recommended amount, and 700mg of sodium.
Yup. what else can I say except poor self control and shortcuts are a mean combination.
I eat a lot healthier now, but that mistake isn't one that just goes away.
Not to defend diet coke (any kind of soda is not healthy for you, regardless), but I would generally assume that drinking 144oz (assuming 18x8oz cans/day) of any type of beverage that isn't plain old water would tend to cause some level of serious health effects, given that's more than your entire general recommended daily fluid intake from all sources. I feel like the general takeaway is that most food and drink is bad for you in excess, and companies constantly slapping "diet/low fat/low carb/etc." labels on junk food products that are marginally healthier than their peers gives a false impression that you can have your cake and eat it too in terms of negative health effects from these foods/drinks.
That's basically how I've felt about it. If you're getting too much sugar from drinking soda, the correct response is to drink less soda - not substitute the sugar with something that tricks your body into thinking it's sweet.
Around 20+ cans of coke a day which the majority of people don’t do.
This guy has never met an American. Ever heard of a Big Gulp? We literally had private companies engineer bigger soda cups to handle how much fucking soda Americans drink.
I dont necessarily disagree with your overall point about Americans drinking a lot of soda, but I don't think pointing out that a company makes a cup a little smaller than 3 cans of soda is a very strong counterargument to the claim that it takes 20+ to be harmful...
The largest Big Gulp is 50oz and when I was a kid, people leaned on free refills for them. A 50oz is almost a whole 2-liter.
You're not wrong, it's not the best example, but I've seen people go through numerous Big Gulps a day.
Hell, when I worked overnight as a security guard, one of my fellow guards who drink an entire 2-liter of Mountain Dew to himself every night.
It's hard for me to think about because I can't even get through a whole 16oz without stopping halfway because it's too syrupy.
A 2 liter a day is still miles away from the amount you'd need to drink to reach unsafe levels.
I think you'd have to drink 3+ a day before you're at unsafe levels if you're 150lbs (and...well...if we are shitting on eating habits, 150 is a very light American).
Regardless of this corrupt shit, in general studies show that it's safe in normal quantities. Health wise it's much better then sugar.
Literally every fucking health org has studied the chemical and found no evidence of health issues connected to it. It's only this one study that the IARC cites. And IARC doesn't take dosage into account either.
Regardless of people's taste for aspartame, it is literally not dangerous. It does taste dry. It doesn't taste like sugar. You do not have to enjoy it. But it is not bad for you.
edit: my badly worded comment got some discussion going which is great. I just want to say that I was being as hyperbolic as the worried people and I'm sorry. Of course it's not black or white. There are factors to consider, but what I was trying to express was that aspartame leans to the safe side rather than dangerous.
Obviously do not drink 25 cans of soda a day, obviously do not compensate for the fact that you're drinking a "light" product by consuming more of it. But a can a day isn't gonna ruin your health.
This kind of shit makes people distrustful of science in general. Way to go, guys.
I don't understand how people are so surprised to discover that experts in a particular field or industry...
GASP!
Have worked or continue to work in said field or industry!
Is it really a surprise that an expert in the subject of aspartame works or has worked for one of the biggest users of aspartame? You think aspartame experts are going to work for car companies?
Like if you wanted to find an expert on say... petroleum, it shouldn't be a surprise that they have worked for an oil company. That said, any obvious conflicts of interest should be noted in any reports so that others are aware, but someone's expertise shouldn't be immediately discounted.
I think it’s sort of a catch 22. The people that tend to be the most knowledgeable about a particular science often have industry experience doing the exact thing you want them to study now. The idea that people could study the effects of aspartame for decades but are now “tainted” because they used to work for a soda company doesn’t necessarily square up to economic reality.
If however, you choose to put your foot in the sand there you’re going to have a bunch of people on a committee that have no idea what they are doing (which by the way people will also criticize you for) Remember when Trump appointed senior cabinet positions to people with completely unrelated experience? Such as Ben Carson (a former medical doctor) being appointed secretary of housing.
It’s a lose/lose situation I’m not sure what you all are expecting.
Similar to how oil companies researched global warming. They have the scientists in the right field and the data, but corporate interests will cover up things that don't align to their business models.
Overall if the study is sound, other scientists can chime in and prove or disprove their results. Really the laymen should take studies (done by anyone) with a grain of salt until the wider community comes to a consensus,
these kinds of conflicts of interests need to be disclosed properly, clearly and up front, and folks need to be critical until its sufficiently peer reviewed
whether other findings agree with these isnt relevant, its still extremely important that folks know that corporate interests might be colouring any given paper
researchers in a given field are practically always going to have jobs with big players in those fields, but taking biases into account is still important for interpreting findings
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In May, the World Health Organization issued an alarming report that declared widely used non-sugar sweeteners like aspartame are likely ineffective for weight loss, and long term consumption may increase the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in adults.
A few months later, WHO declared aspartame, a key ingredient in Diet Coke, to be a “possible carcinogen”, then quickly issued a third report that seemed to contradict its previous findings – people could continue consuming the product at levels determined to be safe decades ago, before new science cited by WHO raised health concerns.
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).
That same day, WHO’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (Jecfa), which makes consumption recommendations, reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg of body weight.
Ruskin said the move also marks a change in direction for WHO, which in 2015 distanced itself from Ilsi when its executive board found the group to be a “private entity” and voted to discontinue its official relationship.
In the “avalanche” of media coverage of WHO’s designation of aspartame as a possible carcinogen, many outlets noted WHO’s split decision, or reported that WHO found the product to be safe.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Okay, so, let me get this straight. This panel said aspartame is safe, but it's got a conflict of interest, so we should ignore all that and fall back to the conventional wisdom that…aspartame is safe?
A lot of strange defending of this corrupt behavior here. The fact that this corruption exists immediately calls into question the safety of the recommendations. It won't be the first time Americans were killed for corporate profits.
A lot of scientists who actually know the studies and biochemistry involved, actually. Not "defending of this corrupt behavior", but just pointing out that corrupt behavior doesn't negate the science itself.
Corruption is a part of companies and capitalism. Even the "good" companies, like renewables, are corrupt and do corrupt things.
This type of corruption should require those involved getting lengthy prison sentences to.
Instead they'll get a reprimand and a reminder not to do it again
Did WHO know this before announcement? Lol
I mean .. the people at WHO who hired them, must have known? (Conflict of interest is important in these kinds of health subjects)..
Of course they still tell diabetics to keep chugging down carbs and just buying more and more insulin...
I dont trust them.
A story as old as time: People who make decisions being paid by people who benefit from the "right" decisions.
I still wonder if artificial sweeteners mess with metabolism, say by training people to ignore satiety signals, which would be why we saw that study a few days back saying artificial sweeteners are associated with weight gain.