21 ms·
Aspartame and cancer – new evidence for causation
- brador 5y agoAre there any other common food ingredients that have a high chance of causing cancer?
- vkou 5y agoRed meat.
- illuminati1911 5y agoThose are all correlations and observational studies. There is no actual evidence of any meat increasing risk of cancer.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoExcept when it’s grilled/charred, but then I guess it’s not the meat that’s carcinogenic at that point
- gnicholas 5y agoI was surprised to see a Prop 65 warning on the organic frozen spinach we get delivered by Amazon Fresh/Whole Foods. Apparently it's due to Cadmium. It makes me wonder if the stuff you buy in-store doesn't have the same risk, or if they just don't label it as obviously as online.
- Groxx 5y agoYou can find prop 65 warnings on basically anything heated to browning too. Coffee, cooked asparagus, bread, the list is gigantic: https://franzbakery.com/HTML/prop65 https://franzbakery.com/HTML/prop65
- fermentation 5y agoI’ve seen the prop65 warnings about reproductive health on Japanese canned coffee and tea, but I’ve never seen these warnings on any other canned drinks here in the US
- jazzyjackson 5y agoMaybe they are imported through California? Most canned drinks probably come from Ohio or New Jersey or something.
- jdavis703 5y agoThe physical store likely has a warning saying they “contain chemicals known to cause cancer.” Because these warning signs are so ubiquitous in California you probably just miss it when you go to the brick & mortar.
- gnicholas 5y agoQuite possibly, but it seems like if you can just have one big sign in front of the store, then you could just have one sign on the bottom of a website. Here there's a specific warning on the organic frozen spinach.
- xeromal 5y agoBrazil nuts are like that as well. The nuts themselves are ok but how they're grown causes them to contain too much selenium which can be toxic over time. Mercury in fish is another doozy.
- farmerstan 5y agoAcrylamides.
- NeoLaval 5y agoYes. Trans fats and nitrates, for example.
- sjwalter 5y agoI might be a paranoiac here, but I prefer to keep a somewhat-permeable whitelist instead of a blacklist. Make sure 2/3ish of my calories come from healthy animal proteins (I raise pigs and chickens and trade meat and eggs for beef, so I know exactly what's going into what's going into me), drink almost exclusively water (2-5 expressos a day are worth mentioning too), and then fill in the rest with whatever the hell I want. Don't have to be careful with particular ingredients if you have a steady baseline of known-good, nutrient-dense, healthful calories. Also never have to waste on time on bullshit like this--oh, no, maybe aspartame ISN'T good for you! or, What did the NYTimes says about Splenda? or what the NIH researched about highly-processed factory-produced fake meat. Ignore it all, eat reasonable, old-school food. In one kind of way it's kind of like that story you hear about Steve Jobs wearing the same black shirt and jeans every day--it actually is a consequential decision--what to eat vs. how to present yourself. But, if you can pre-set some defaults that get you to Good Enough (and in the case of my diet, apparently Better Than 95% of Americans), you save so much mental energy. It seems to me most "nutritional research" serves the purposes of large agribusiness and/or fad-nutrition industries. Why bother spending mental effort on that bullshit?
- xwdv 5y agoI agree. Flavor should follow function. Too many people prioritize building meals that taste good when they should first be optimizing for nutrition. Once you've configured genuinely healthy foods into some arrangement suitable for consumption, it's best to just keep building that same meal over and over. You'll get more efficient at making it and eating it, thus saving time and never having to worry if you're hitting your nutrition goals. Save the creative meals for special occasions or social functions.
- Gh0stRAT 5y agoProcessed meats and red meats are linked to colorectal cancer. I believe it's something like 70% of CRC cases can be traced back to red/processed meat consumption. >In 2007, the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) stated that there is convincing evidence linking the consumption of red and processed meat with the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). The WCRF further stated that the public should limit their intake of red meat to below 500 g per week, and avoid processed meat entirely. A further update from the WCRF emphasized that no safe level of processed meat could confidently be attributed to a lack of risk. Excerpt from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893523/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893523/
- bitexploder 5y agoI saw another study that showed only processed meats were linked to colon cancer recently. Variety and moderation, avoid processed foods. I don’t think red meat is the culprit people make it out to be /in a healthy and balanced diet/.
- chrisco255 5y agoThese studies are all incredibly weak, because they rely on surveys and pluck variables out for correlations. So besides the fact that people almost never remember or accurately report what they eat over many years, it's a dubious correlation that can't be relied on.
- hellbannedguy 5y agoThese are not common food ingredient, and they are not supposed to be injested. I was doing the dishes the other day, and like usually, doing a terrible job--trying to save water too. I was thinking what damage could soap residue do? I then noticed the Dawn Soap. From and center they listed all the ingredients. (So front and center it looks like a lawyer told them to place the ingredients front, and center?) Do I still love Dawn soap--yes, but not for my dishes anymore. (Machine shops use Dawn to clean parts, and it works great on oily birds. My point is the amount of chemicals around us. An No--I'm not claiming anything bad about Dawn Soap. WATER SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE surfactant SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE C10-16 ALKYLDIME-THYLAMINE OXIDE ALCOHOL DENAT. solvent PPG-26 SODIUM CHLORIDE SODIUM HYDROXIDEadjuster PEI-14 PEG-24/PPG-16 COPOLYMER cleaning PHENOXYETHANOL solvent solvent* stabilizes formula FRAGRANCES fragrance perfume adds scent to product METHYLISOTHIAZO-LINONE COLORANTS, BLUE 1,YELLOW 5, RED 33 colorant colorant C9-11 PARETH-8 STYRENE/ACRYLATES COPOLYMER TETRASODIUM GLUTAMATE DIACETATE CHLOROXYLENOL PHENOXY-ISOPROPANOL GLYCERIN SODIUM CUMENE-SULFONATE PROPYLENE GLYCOL solvent solvent* TERPINEOL solvent solvent
- XorNot 5y agoThese are literally, literally, the same ingredients which are found in "natural" (animal-fat derived) soaps. This is some "dihydrogen monoxide" grade FUD.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoSoap is hydrophilic, it sticks to water, that’s what makes it good at washing things away. I never had trouble with soap residue, I figure I would taste it if any was left behind. Edit: I do buy the colorless and scent free soap cause I don’t see why dyes should be in soap tho
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y agoGet ready to be surprised at the ingredients in a banana!: INGREDIENTS: WATER (75%), SUGARS (12%) (GLUCOSE (48%), FRUCTOSE (40%), SUCROSE (2%), MALTOSE (<1%)), STARCH (5%), FIBRE (3%) (E460, E461, E462, E464, E466, E467) AMINO ACIDS (GLUTAMIC ACID (19%), ASPARTIC ACID (16%), HISTIDINE (11%), LEUCINE (7%), LYSINE (5%), PHENYLALANINE (4%), ARGININE (4%), VALINE (4%), ALANINE (4%), SERINE (4%), GLYCINE (3%), THREONINE (3%), ISOLEUCINE (3%), PROLINE (3%), TRYPTOPHAN (1%), CYSTINE (1%), TYROSINE (1%), METHIONINE (1%)), FATTY ACIDS (1%) (PALMITIC ACID (30%), OMEGA-6 FATTY ACID: LINOLEIC ACID (14%), OMEGA-3 FATTY ACID: LINOLENIC ACID (8%), OLEIC ACID (7%), PALMITOLEIC ACID (3%), STEARIC ACID (2%), LAURIC ACID (1%), MYRISTIC ACID (1%), CAPRIC ACID (<1%)), ASH (<1%), PHYTOSTEROLS, E515, OXALIC ACID, E300, E306 (TOCOPHEROL), PHYLLOQUINONE, THIAMIN, COLOURS (YELLOW-ORANGE E101 (RIBOFLAVIN), YELLOW-BROWN E160a), FLAVOURS (ETHYL HEXANOATE, ETHYL BUTANOATE, 3-METHYLBUT-1-YL ETHANOATE, PENTYL ACETATE), E1510, NATURAL RIPENING AGENT (ETHENE GAS).
- AuryGlenz 5y agoAlcohol would be the big one.
- caturopath 5y agoI think that there's some weird sort of moralization aspect to alternative sweeteners or just a 'too good to be true' attitude. In how many other areas would we spend so much time looking at such scant evidence and taking it seriously?
- Pxtl 5y agoI agree. You saw it with Trump's Diet Coke habit - it somehow was tied into the many ways he is a complete garbage human, as if it was one more petty vice to pile onto the long list of his vices.
- hellbannedguy 5y agoI've always thought they tasted terrible.
- Gigachad 5y agoThey taste different to cane sugar / corn syrup but good/bad is subjective and something you get used to. I used to not like it but now my taste adjusted it and now I don't like the "real sugar" flavor.
- caturopath 5y agoIt's a big category. Aspartame has a really distinctive taste, but lots of sweeteners like sucralose and allulose not so much.
- pmoriarty 5y agoI can recommend tagatose.[1] It tastes and feels indistinguishable from ordinary table sugar to me. [1] - https://www.wired.com/2003/11/newsugar/ https://www.wired.com/2003/11/newsugar/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagatose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagatose
- notJim 5y agoYou get used to it after a while. I actually sometimes prefer a Coke Zero because of its unique taste (though I try to avoid soda altogether.)
- kiba 5y agoNote that it is in rodent. Aspartame hadn't been confirmed as a carcinogenic agent in humans. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to subject to ourselves to drinking diet soda as a daily habit. It costs money, may or may not interfere with your blood sugar and the health of your gut microbiomes. As a goal, I limit my intake of any sweet and/or artifically sweetened drinks. Instead of being a chronic diet coke drinker, I instead became a chronic drinker of water. Two or three cups of water is typically what I drink in a daily meal.
- user3939382 5y agoTo be sure, the jury is still out on this, but there is at least reason to be concerned about aspartame’s like to certain neurological problems as well: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23280025/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23280025/ Also, it still spikes your insulin. Better to just avoid it and sugar altogether as much as possible.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- _kbh_ 5y agonot only is it rodent the amount of Aspartame / kilogram is huge even at their lowest value (20mg/kg). Coke no sugar has ~87 mg of Aspartame in it, you need to do drink ~20 cans of it to meet the same Aspartame level in a 90kg human.
- Jtsummers 5y agoA 90kg human is above the US national average, though about on target for US men. 81kg is the US average body weight with women around 73kg. So for women, that means the quantity they'd need to consume to reach that level is around 16 cans. 16 cans translates to 192 oz, or about 1.5 gallons. That is indeed quite a bit, but about twice what's recommended by volume for water consumption for women.
- Semaphor 5y ago> 16 cans translates to 192 oz, or about 1.5 gallons. About 5.5 liters for non USA people.
- oojuliuso 5y agobill gates is/was a diet coke fan. if i ran into him, say at dick's drive-in, i'd ask if he still drinks the stuff. i'd likely follow whatever he says. but for now, i'll continue to enjoy my 1-2 cans daily.
- lysozyme 5y agoThe strain of rat used in these experiments, the Sprague Dawley, is commonly used to study cancer because it has a higher baseline incidence of cancer and grows solid tumors faster than other strains [1]. Interestingly, it’s the same strain that was used in the now-discredited study purportedly showing that RoundUp causes cancer [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_rat#Sprague_Dawley_rat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_rat#Sprague_Dawley_... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
- cwwc 5y ago#monsanto
- notJim 5y agoWasn’t there a study in the last couple years showing evidence that diet soda causes cancer?
- Gatsky 5y agoAspartame is an amino acid right? Isn’t it going to be in all sorts of proteins then? Doesn’t that make it rather implausible that it is toxic?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Aspartame is an amino acid right? No, that's not right. It's a peptide (a unit composed of amino acids), not an amino acid. > Isn’t it going to be in all sorts of proteins then? Proteins are made of peptides but not all peptides are common in proteins, no. > Doesn’t that make it rather implausible that it is toxic? No, lots of proteins are toxic to particular organisms, too.
- schoen 5y agoThe amino acid in question is apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartic_acid, a chemical component of aspartame, and the origin of the latter's name, but not at all the same substance.
- Bud 5y agoEven without the fundamental error of calling aspartame an amino acid, this argument is also similar to saying that chlorine and sodium can't be toxic since they are "in" sodium chloride, and salt is perfectly safe. Betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of chemistry.
- tptacek 5y agoAspartame isn't just widely consumed, it's practically universally consumed. If it was carcinogenic in humans, wouldn't there be obvious epidemiological evidence to back that up?
- XorNot 5y agoIt's not unreasonable to assume that the current rate of disease in our populations might be able to be lower since we weren't tracking the association of the introduction of products to safety in years past as well as we do today. A better question is, suppose it was known that it did create a small but measurable in lifetime cancer risk, would you actually want to keep consuming it? EDIT: Also aspartame is hardly universal - it's biggest use is in diet soda. Those of us who essentially never consume it (it's been...over 2 years for me) would almost never be exposed to it.
- tptacek 5y agoI don't know, like everybody else, I eat things with substantial amounts of acrylamide, which is a carcinogen we actually know is problematic, unlike aspartame. You're commenting on a story that suggests that even small exposures to aspartame might be dangerous. And you stopped drinking diet soda only recently. I think you might have a hard time finding an American (for instance) that hadn't consumed a substantial amount of aspartame.
- kortex 5y agoExactly. Anyone worried about aspartame but still consuming fried/grilled/brazed food (basically anything besides blanching) is kinda missing the point.
- psyc 5y agoIs aspartame commonly used in products that aren't labeled as containing it, or that one might be surprised about? I never buy any food or drink labeled "sugar free" or "contains NutraSweet (or similar)". So I had assumed I wasn't consuming chemical sweeteners. Is it as common as you say because it is widely used in little-known places, or just because most people eat/drink sugar-free products? Asking out of idle curiosity/surprise. I'm not afraid of aspartame, I just don't care for the taste much.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sm4rk0 5y agoTL;DR: > This immunohistochemical and morphological re-evaluation confirmed the original diagnoses of malignancy in 92.3% of cases. Six lesions originally diagnosed as lymphoma (8% of all HLTs) were reclassified: 3 to lymphoid hyperplasia, and 3 to chronic inflammation with fibrosis. There was no evidence of Mycoplasma infection.
- kortex 5y agoOccam's razor: 1) humans consume ~5000 tonnes of the stuff, which apparently causes multiple kinds of cancers in rodents, and it's also super bad for humans, but despite its ubiquity we haven't seen that signal because...? 2) rodents with a lifespan of 1-3 years get cancer super-duper easily Rodent models are easy. Easy != simple.
- zug_zug 5y agoWell if you google it the very first result shows that some studies have found a link in humans, others have not. So in the case of mixed data, it's really up to the individual if they want to err on the side of cancer or not. Given the track record of underestimating the damage of things, I know where I stand. But it's your body.
- kortex 5y agoIf I google what? "aspartame cancer" > Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (3). A 2013 review of epidemiologic evidence also found no consistent association between the use of aspartame and cancer risk (4).Aug 10, 2016 https://www.cancer.gov https://www.cancer.gov › risk › diet Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer - National Cancer Institute
- Animats 5y ago"Increased incidence of malignant tumors was seen even in animals exposed to relatively low doses of aspartame – exposures close to the current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels of 40 mg/Kg body weight in the European Union and 50 mg/Kg body weight in the United States." Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi has the most aspartame, at 188mg/can (12 oz). So, for someone weighing 50kg, the currently allowed dose is 2000 mg/day. Or 10 cans/day. For a few years around 2015, Pepsi tried switching from aspartame to sucralose. But that was unpopular. One comment is that aspartame is the most studied artificial sweetener. Others may be worse but less studied.
- MyHypatia 5y agoOne of the lowest effort healthy lifestyle changes you can make is to wean your body off of craving sweets. Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. Replace sweetened drinks with unsweetened tea (there are hundreds of varieties, you will find something that you like). Replace desserts with your favorite fruit or berries. Your body, mind, and teeth will thank you.
- computerphage 5y ago> Artificial sweeteners still make you crave sweets. How do you know that this is true?
- KozmoNau7 5y agoFrequent exposure to sweetness makes your taste receptors accustomed to it, like building up a tolerance. It's obvious by a simple experiment: cut out everything sweet (at the very least candy, sweets and desserts) for a couple of weeks, then try eating a candy bar or a thickly-frosted cupcake. It will taste almost unbearably sweet. Make sweets something you only enjoy as a rare treat, and you'll find that you'll eat much less of them, because the sweetness will simply be too much.
- tolleydbg 5y agoI think there is evidence that this is true for some sweeteners, such as Ace K, but I don't think this is the case with aspartame.
- enchiridion 5y agoAnecdotally people who do keto have documented increased insulin levels from artificial sweeteners.
- naasking 5y agoI believe that's true, that you'll see an insulin response from anything that tastes sweet, but that doesn't automatically entail that you'll crave sweet.
- hivacruz 5y agoI still need a small glass of Diet Coke every day in the afternoon. I need to cut the habit so I'm drinking right now Diet Coke without Caffeine.. It is like the last step before quitting for good. I like to drink sparkling water (San Pellegrino) when eating, I hope it will help me stop. Fresh sparkling water is good! My bottle of 1 liter (33 oz I think in the US) lasts 4 or 5 days so I don't know if I'm at risk.
- nicoburns 5y agoHealth wise you'd probably be better off drinking a caffienated drink that wasn't coke. Perhaps kombucha or similar.
- zwischenzug 5y agohttps://mobile.twitter.com/ianmiell/status/1395292504208125954 https://mobile.twitter.com/ianmiell/status/13952925042081259... I found aspartame triggers my skin condition, probably due to gut bacteria effects. Reading up I found it's got a lot of side effects which sound bad. Also, my gums are better since giving up coke zero.
- zosima 5y agoFrom the abstract this study does not bear any resemblance to the headline and makes very little sense to me. They reevaluated tumors from a 15 year old study in rodents, to prove that the original work was correct and that there wasn't any traces of mycoplasma. And so, I presume, they argue that the cancers were caused by aspartame. But that in itself does not prove whether or not the original study was flawed, and well there is mountains of evidence showing very little carcinogenicity from aspartame. If you were to argue for the carcinogenicity of aspartame, then I suggest running a new study as a first step at least. And then explain why you see something most other studies have failed to see.
- gscott 5y agoMice tend to be so inbred they all die of cancer. They should redo the study on a different animal that has less incidence of cancer normally... like Rabbits.
- vlod 5y agoIsn't a control group used to negate this?
- lovemenot 5y agoAssuming both your parent and your comment are correct (and no other controls), then the experiment tells us the effects of the substance on populations that are disproportionately predisposed to cancer. Surely, not very infourmative in a cancer study. Note, I don't know whether these assumptions actually hold. Just taking it on its face.
- fsckboy 5y agoI believe he's referring to the hypothesis (I think tested) touted by Bret Weinstein that lab mice breeding has led to strains with extremely long telomeres, a feature that makes them resilient to all sorts of cellular damage, but makes them also susceptible to cancer; Bret's point being that they aren't good for either cancer nor non-cancer research. Lab mice breeders may have responded to this idea, but he alleges it's been swept under the carpet, too many studies at stake. Or something like that.
- yawaworht1978 5y agoTo the fruit issue, it needs to be said that fructose can only be metabolized or stored in the liver, the capacity is about 25 grams for an adult, that would be one banana. Or two apples. It's not bad, but should be kept in mind. The same vitamins can are in vegetables, but of course veggies do not taste as good.
- Johnny555 5y agoI treat artificial sweeteners like I do mask wearing -- I'm not sure how much difference wearing a mask makes for my safety and safety of others, but I wear it anyway because it's a very minor inconvenience and it probably helps. I avoid artificial sweeteners because I'm not sure if they have any detrimental effects, but I avoid them anyway because it's a minor inconvenience, and whether they are actually harmful or not, they are almost certainly not nutritious and good for me. (of course the big difference is that wearing a mask almost certainly helps others more than myself)
- abacadaba 5y agoI still tell myself stevia is better even though I'm not at all confident that it's true. I usually avoid/minimize but those flavored water squirt things get me. Edit: Mainly due to the effects of my body thinking it's getting sugar, no reason to think stevia causes cancer that I'm aware of.
- treeman79 5y agoFun factoid they are a major migraine trigger for many.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nvarsj 5y agoExcept mask wearing actually has scientific evidence for its effectiveness, and is why governments around the world recommend it. [1] Your rationale is based on personal bias against "artificial" substances. The same kind of quack reasoning that drives anti vaxers and other nonsense movements. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536
- twerkmonsta 5y agoAren’t most “artificial” substances more likely to be carcinogenic or toxic than something occurring naturally? Or is that just my wacky personal bias talking?
- humaniania 5y agoAs if the carbon and plastic pollution impacts of the bottled beverage industry weren't reason enough to switch to plain water.
- sudoaza 5y agoShouldn't we test this stuff before selling the stuff to millions of people?
- jasonhansel 5y agoI think the relevant question is not "does aspartame increase cancer risk" but "does aspartame cause more negative health effects than added sugar." Excessive sugar consumption itself has numerous well-known health risks, including increasing the risks of some types of cancer (mainly by driving obesity).
- skwirl 5y agoThat's a false choice, though. I can avoid both sugar and aspartame.