7 ms·

I remember reading back in the early 90s a number of studies that showed elevated risks of certain brain cancers from aspartame. The evidence was pretty strong

I remember reading back in the early 90s a number of studies that showed elevated risks of certain brain cancers from aspartame. The evidence was pretty strong - it wasn't conclusive (hence the "possibly" qualifier in this label), but it was enough that I was personally convinced. The link between aspartame and cancer is much stronger than the one between cyclamate (banned in 1970 but legal in the EU) and cancer. My parents never let me chug Sweet'n'Low packets the same way I chugged sugar packets because of it. IIRC, the only reason aspartame was not banned was because saccharine had just been, and if you banned aspartame there would have been literally no artificial sweeteners on the market. That is no longer the case, with sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame potassium (Coke Zero and other diet sodas), Stevia, sorbitol, and several other sweeteners now on the market.

tracker1 3y ago
Sucralose saw a recent study on effects of DNA that are more compelling than Aspartame. Acesulfame-K messes with pancrease and insulin signalling, Stevia has other detractors iirc... etc. etc. In the end, it's all a mixed bag, and who knows if it's actually better or worse than consuming more than 25-40mg of fructose or alcohol in a day. There are massive corporate interests in all directions with deep revolving doors in regulatory and research bodies. It's effectively impossible to know. Is it a variety/strain of food that was considered "food" 250+ years ago? Probably safe. Is it a new strain that has a multiplier of hystamine or other negative hormonal responses, or in a consumption that is a multiple of 250+ years ago? Probably not safe. That's my take.
- delian66 3y ago
  Why 250+ years?
  - tracker1 3y ago
    Crops as industry. Most of the changes are more recent. But selective breeding for appeal en mass is not the same as for nutrition.
copperx 3y ago
Sucralose (Splenda) has been linked to cancer quite convincingly last week. It's the only artificial sweetener that I used, and now there are no options except sugar alcohols. Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer.
- valval 3y ago
  Why use artificial sweeteners in the first place? Honey is a great sweetener.
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.
    - valval 3y ago
      Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?
      - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
        Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. I mean, good luck avoiding them and liking chewing gum. Or good luck if you are diabetic and want a soda from time to time. Folks on keto diets avoid a lot of carbs, and diabetics tend to watch them. Artificial sweeteners help folks do this. Honey has similar woes to actual sugar, and if you are using the artificial stuff to avoid the effects of real sugar, honey is no solution. Choosing between the two - artificial or "natural" - is really just a question of risk. You aren't in the position of considering that a soda might kill you. Or trying to explain your diabetic grandmother with memory problems that she simply can't have soda at all: I'm not sure giving an artificially sweetened drink really is going to be what puts them in an early grave.
tptacek 3y ago
The claim you're making here is that there are studies that present strong evidence that aspartame causes brain cancer, but that they've been suppressed this long because otherwise there'd be no artificial sweeteners, a concern we're saying IARC would have had, and that as a result, in 2023, the only way we can move aspartame into Group 2B --- the possible carcinogens nobody takes seriously --- is an observational study in France showing a barely significant increase in cancer rates.
tamrix 3y ago
Sadly the marketing just works too well and now you're a conspiracy theorist for questioning the narrative.
- Spivak 3y ago
  What marketing? Everyone I know who drinks diet soda myself included basically assumes we're getting cancer from it eventually. It's like the most common meme about it.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    ??? I’m hearing this first. Know a lot of people who drink Diet Coke.
    - quags 3y ago
      I drink diet soda sometimes and have a strong idea it is unhealthy so I limit intake. I switched from full sugar soda which has its own risks. I tend to now drink flavored selzter with out sweeteners although there is a question what natural flavors may be. I also imagine the same risks apply to hot dogs and processed lunch meats that diet soda has.
    - agos 3y ago
      at least in my part of the world (southern Europe) the Aspartame causes cancer meme has been floating around since the 90s at least
mohaine 3y ago
Sweet'n'Low doesn't contain aspartame. It is Saccharin.
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  Wasn’t saccharine one of the first to be shown to be a likely carcinogen?
  - quags 3y ago
    I remember warnings in the 90s on labels that saccharine causes cancer in high doses in lab mice on gum - over time ace k / Splenda and aspartame were used instead.

tracker1 3y ago

Sucralose saw a recent study on effects of DNA that are more compelling than Aspartame. Acesulfame-K messes with pancrease and insulin signalling, Stevia has other detractors iirc... etc. etc. In the end, it's all a mixed bag, and who knows if it's actually better or worse than consuming more than 25-40mg of fructose or alcohol in a day. There are massive corporate interests in all directions with deep revolving doors in regulatory and research bodies. It's effectively impossible to know. Is it a variety/strain of food that was considered "food" 250+ years ago? Probably safe. Is it a new strain that has a multiplier of hystamine or other negative hormonal responses, or in a consumption that is a multiple of 250+ years ago? Probably not safe. That's my take.

delian66 3y ago
Why 250+ years?
- tracker1 3y ago
  Crops as industry. Most of the changes are more recent. But selective breeding for appeal en mass is not the same as for nutrition.

copperx 3y ago

Sucralose (Splenda) has been linked to cancer quite convincingly last week. It's the only artificial sweetener that I used, and now there are no options except sugar alcohols. Monk Fruit has also been linked to cancer.

valval 3y ago
Why use artificial sweeteners in the first place? Honey is a great sweetener.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  Sure, in the right things - but I wouldn't want the taste. Besides, honey doesn't really do what the artificial sweeteners does. "Just use honey" is horrible advice for diabetics, for example. It isn't going to help folks that are looking to avoid carbs. And so on. Realistically, if you aren't supposed to be eating added sugar, honey isn't going to do the job either. It is just a different form of sugar.
  - valval 3y ago
    Carbs are essential for good health and any sort of exercising. Why would someone want to avoid carbs entirely? Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. Why eat anything processed or artificial when better alternatives exist?
    - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
      Artificial sweeteners will only put you in an early grave. I mean, good luck avoiding them and liking chewing gum. Or good luck if you are diabetic and want a soda from time to time. Folks on keto diets avoid a lot of carbs, and diabetics tend to watch them. Artificial sweeteners help folks do this. Honey has similar woes to actual sugar, and if you are using the artificial stuff to avoid the effects of real sugar, honey is no solution. Choosing between the two - artificial or "natural" - is really just a question of risk. You aren't in the position of considering that a soda might kill you. Or trying to explain your diabetic grandmother with memory problems that she simply can't have soda at all: I'm not sure giving an artificially sweetened drink really is going to be what puts them in an early grave.

tptacek 3y ago

The claim you're making here is that there are studies that present strong evidence that aspartame causes brain cancer, but that they've been suppressed this long because otherwise there'd be no artificial sweeteners, a concern we're saying IARC would have had, and that as a result, in 2023, the only way we can move aspartame into Group 2B --- the possible carcinogens nobody takes seriously --- is an observational study in France showing a barely significant increase in cancer rates.

tamrix 3y ago

Sadly the marketing just works too well and now you're a conspiracy theorist for questioning the narrative.

Spivak 3y ago
What marketing? Everyone I know who drinks diet soda myself included basically assumes we're getting cancer from it eventually. It's like the most common meme about it.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  ??? I’m hearing this first. Know a lot of people who drink Diet Coke.
  - quags 3y ago
    I drink diet soda sometimes and have a strong idea it is unhealthy so I limit intake. I switched from full sugar soda which has its own risks. I tend to now drink flavored selzter with out sweeteners although there is a question what natural flavors may be. I also imagine the same risks apply to hot dogs and processed lunch meats that diet soda has.
  - agos 3y ago
    at least in my part of the world (southern Europe) the Aspartame causes cancer meme has been floating around since the 90s at least

mohaine 3y ago

Sweet'n'Low doesn't contain aspartame. It is Saccharin.

berniedurfee 3y ago
Wasn’t saccharine one of the first to be shown to be a likely carcinogen?
- quags 3y ago
  I remember warnings in the 90s on labels that saccharine causes cancer in high doses in lab mice on gum - over time ace k / Splenda and aspartame were used instead.