this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
78 points (94.3% liked)

World News

32065 readers
1029 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Total nonsense. If you consume enough of any substance, it will eventually kill you. Aspartame is THE most heavily studied food additive in human history and every well-conducted study has found it to be harmless. You need to consume the equivalent of 125+ cans of Diet soda per day to see an even slightly elevated risk of cancer or any other serious disease. This is disgusting, misprepresentative fear-mongering that will steer people away from low-calorie alternatives to sugary soft drinks, thereby contributing to increasing rates of obesity and diabetes and playing right into the sugar lobby's interests.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you exaggerating or do you have actual sources? I did some searching around and can’t verify your claims.

The choice to reject new information just because something has been studied a lot is a very anti-science take.

People should understand aspartame, and understand sugar, as much as they can and make their own choices for their health.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The 125 can figure came from the methodology used in some of the low quality rat studies frequently cited to demonstrate the dangers of aspartame back in the day. I'll see if I can find the specific studies.

This page by the National Cancer Institute provides a pretty decent overview of research on a variety of artificial sweeteners. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet

One very recent study (Debras et al., 2022) suggested a link between aspartame consumption and cancer, which I suspect is behind the recent hysteria. Pretty much every other high quality study over the past 50 years found no correlation. If aspartame is indeed a dangerous carcinogen, that fact should be clear through epidemiological data alone, like the 2013 study by Marinovich et al. cited in the article. I lend that study and those like it much greater credibility than one-off cohort studies like Debras.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need to consume the equivalent of 125+ cans of Diet soda per day to see an even slightly elevated risk of cancer or any other serious disease

The report says that 14 cans for a person who is normal weight, but that's still 5L of diet pop!

Heartburn and stomach upset would probably prevent anyone from consuming that much of this stuff.

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

I used to have quite the diet coke habit. I would regularly drink 6 cans before noon to wake up, and on weekends when I didn't need to get to sleep, I probably did often hit 14 cans or more. But I think I even topped out around that 14 can amount because you start getting caffeine side effects and twitching...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If donald trump hasn't contracted cancer from his diet coke habit it's probably safe enough

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

Idk. Even cancer has standards.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

So the somatic cells within Mr. Trump split with an unfortunate mutation that leads to out of control growth and they are just like "erm I dunno I think our host/origin is problematic" and apoptosis ensues

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

One can keep hoping.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They've been saying aspartame is carcinogenic for decades now. If further research is needed, then why are food producers still able to use it? Seems to me like if they suspect that it's carcinogenic, that it should be restricted until they can prove it's safe for consumption.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Most of the claims of artificial sweeteners being carcinogenic come from the sugar industry, if I'm not mistaken. There are plenty of epidemiological studies they show no increases in cancer among populations that consume artificially sweetened drinks compared to those who don't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

They have never said it is carcinogenic. They're saying it may be carcinogenic, due to a tentative correlation with hepatocellular carcinoma. And they're also saying it appears to be safe if you're consuming a reasonable amount of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The problem is that it's always depending on the dose.

Fictional example: You can show an increased cancer risk in animal testing if amount x is consumed regularly. But then X is also the equivalent to 20% your body weight in sugar per day.

So now you don't just suspect it's carcinogenic, you know. But it's still completely irrelevant when used as an ingredient in food obviously.

That's basically like saying we need more studies on the toxicity of water as we know it is indeed toxic if you consume too much.

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

Because you would need to drink at least 24 cans of diet soda every day, probably more like 36, for an extended period of time, for there to be any significant risk.

It is safe for consumption at the levels that any sane person would ever consume.

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

They’ve been saying aspartame is carcinogenic for decades now.

Thing is, "they" (scientists) haven't. The general public just kind of assume it is because "unnatural". Study after study has not shown any effect, with this study being notable mainly because it does.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Aspartame is gross anyway. Makes me mouth-sad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I've just let myself get used to it. Like with coffee or beer, it's a bit of an acquired taste. I'd rather be drinking that than sugary beverages.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I find the taste of it utterly revolting. it’s like a sweet imposter, and my mouth says, “no!” It tastes somewhat metallic to me. I prefer stevia. although I don’t normally use sweeteners in stuff like coffee or tea. I avoid soft drinks in general, preferring fruit juice if I drink something other than water or milk.

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

Just don't let beverage companies fool you. Fruit juice's sugar content puts it closer to pop.

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

i usually get my juice fresh rather than from a bottle

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

Regardless, the problem isn't the bottle or the freshness. It's that the juice is being processed to remove it from its matrix of fiber and other nutrients.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Even if you just juice an orange at home and don't strain it?

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

fresh-squeezed juice still has pulp. are you going to keep going on forever just to keep criticizing?

people like you are exhausting.

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

With tea and coffee, I eschew sweeteners entirely. A well made coffee or tea is delicious without sweetening.

I recently went on a keto diet, and my favorite non sugar sweetener is definitely erythritol plus monkfruit extract. I haven't tried stevia but I've heard good things!

load more comments
view more: next ›