3 ms·

I've heard from people, including my wife, that Aspartame causes cancer. We had a 'discussion' earlier about supplements where I argued that I wouldn't spend mo

by Osiris 16y ago

I've heard from people, including my wife, that Aspartame causes cancer. We had a 'discussion' earlier about supplements where I argued that I wouldn't spend money on anything that didn't have scientific studies to show a statistically significant impact by the supplement. It really bothers me when people trust more in word-of-mouth than they do in science.

Yaggo 16y ago
> It really bothers me when people trust more in word-of-mouth than they do in science. Me too. Still I have some sympathy for them, because science is not on-off type of thing. You can't just research if particular substance is safe or dangerous. You must know what you are searching for. You must figure out a level for "safe exposure". Thus it can take long time (even decades) before substance x is found and agreed to be harmful. Considering the history of human evolution and huge changes in our diet and chemical environment in the last 50 years, it's perfectly acceptable to be skeptical, until proven otherwise. Bisphenol A makes good example.
- Bjoern 16y ago
  This reminds me of Paracelsus famous quote. "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
electromagnetic 16y ago
My problem with the Aspartame studies is that the control group on average lived for a shorter duration. The test group always lived longer so without dying of heart disease the next prime killer is cancer. I have yet to see a fixed time limit test (IE when the first mouse dies, kill them all and do the autopsies rather than wait for them to drop one by one). If Aspartame causes cancer it should be significantly visible in the subject animals. However they're living longer and dying of naturally occurring cancers, IIRC one study gave a 20% increase in longevity in the test group that was being fed ridiculous quantities of aspartame (equivalent to pounds a day for humans) but this was never mentioned or pointed out as being a relevant variable.

by Osiris 16y ago

Yaggo 16y ago

> It really bothers me when people trust more in word-of-mouth than they do in science. Me too. Still I have some sympathy for them, because science is not on-off type of thing. You can't just research if particular substance is safe or dangerous. You must know what you are searching for. You must figure out a level for "safe exposure". Thus it can take long time (even decades) before substance x is found and agreed to be harmful. Considering the history of human evolution and huge changes in our diet and chemical environment in the last 50 years, it's perfectly acceptable to be skeptical, until proven otherwise. Bisphenol A makes good example.

Bjoern 16y ago
This reminds me of Paracelsus famous quote. "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

electromagnetic 16y ago

My problem with the Aspartame studies is that the control group on average lived for a shorter duration. The test group always lived longer so without dying of heart disease the next prime killer is cancer. I have yet to see a fixed time limit test (IE when the first mouse dies, kill them all and do the autopsies rather than wait for them to drop one by one). If Aspartame causes cancer it should be significantly visible in the subject animals. However they're living longer and dying of naturally occurring cancers, IIRC one study gave a 20% increase in longevity in the test group that was being fed ridiculous quantities of aspartame (equivalent to pounds a day for humans) but this was never mentioned or pointed out as being a relevant variable.