9 ms·

FDA says aspartame is safe, disagreeing with WHO finding

76 points by hanniabu 3y ago

tu7001 3y ago
Nothing to see here, FDA's spoken.
zafka 3y ago
If you want to take a fun trip down a rabbit hole or two: Search the terms: {Donald Rumsfield, Aspartame } For and extra kick add the term Miraclin
Simulacra 3y ago
*Be thankful for the American government, it's the best that money can buy." -Christopher Buckley
- Simulacra 3y ago
  The FDA can be purchased. This is not surprising. The FDA is in the pockets of big Pharma and big food.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
My understanding is that the WHO has maintained its recommended max. daily intake, which is the equivalent of about 10 cans of soft drinks a day... make of that what you will.
- jackstraw14 3y ago
  I've worked with folks who sit at their desk and drink diet soda from those giant reusable 64oz cups, all day. When it's all zero calories, I guess I can see how you get there.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    That is insane, are they peeing every hour? I feel like at that point it must affect work output.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
      The stuff is caffeinated, it probably helps.
    - amethyst 3y ago
      time lost maybe nullified by increased focus and lack of fatigue due to the caffeine?
- strict9 3y ago
  Ask someone who has worked in a restaurant about the habits of diet coke drinkers. They always require 10x or more refills than water or soda.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonporridge 3y ago
    Perhaps that's partially due to a feeling of moral licensing? e.g. This thing has no calories, therefore I feel justified in overindulging and drinking tons of it to let my primal urge for sweetness go unopposed.
  - andy800 3y ago
    I can speak to this, anecdotally, as I read this comment, at a restaurant, on my 3rd Coke Zero refill. I realized a long time ago that I really enjoy drinking soda, and not much else. Very little interest in alcohol, sure I have some with friends but never when alone. Don't drink coffee (I have, of course, but never particularly enjoyed it or drank it regularly). I do enjoy Gatorade and fruit juice, of course it's because they are sweet. Anyway, I also realized that if I'm going to drink soda regularly, I had to switch to diet. Just for the calories, really, at the time concerns about sugar weren't as prominent. But I gained a bit of weight in my late teens and switching to Diet Coke was a "free" reduction of 500 calories per day. "Free" as in, easy to switch, no dieting, no eating less, etc. My point here is that I think the refill situation is the opposite of what you suggest -- diet soda doesn't cause me to drink more, it's the fact that I've always drank a lot of soda that caused me to choose diet soda. Oh, and maybe it's related, I love chewing on ice that has been doused in soda. A server sees an "empty" glass and wants to clear it, but I see a mountain of delicious ice. Weird, I know.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  7-11 at one point had a 128oz fountain drink which is more than 10 cans of soda (i.e. 120 fl oz).
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Yep that's true. In the summer of '04 I worked as a Napa delivery driver, driving parts orders all over the city to mechanic shops as needed. 7-11 had a location right across the street from us, so it was common that we would make a "sev" run in the morning to get everybody caffeinated. The manager there was a badass classic parts guy that was a great guy and who did his job really well, but drank copious amounts of caffeine. 7-11 started selling an enormous 128 oz mug that we would fill with soda in the morning and drink throughout the day. That was an insane amount of soda. But my boss at the time would have me take his 128 oz mug and fill it with several pots of coffee. The clerk at sev would joke about how she had to make a couple of extra pots around 8 am because of my boss, and how "I know it's still for him even if he's too chicken to come in himself." To this day I've never known anybody that drank as much caffeine as he did. I'm guessing the nicotine from the chain smoking helped take some of the edge off :-D Those were different times.
qup 3y ago
You can believe anything you want, and cite a credible source. Peak 2023
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
  Some questions have fuzzy, ambiguous answers that are subject to interpretation. It was that way last year too. It's not a reason to get frustrated with science. It's an ongoing process.
  - belval 3y ago
    I don't think this is "getting frustrated with science" as much as "getting frustrated with the reporting on science". I don't think people are arguing that doing aspartame research is pointless so much as they are annoyed at the sensationalistic approach taken to report of that research. There is a large difference between "Aspartame may cause cancer" and "Aspartame may cause cancer if you drink 14 cans of diet coke a day". It's pointless distractions at best and downright fear-mongering at worse in the attempt of getting ad-revenue from clicks.
    - add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
      But "You can believe anything you want" is a personal choice, there's extra nuance that explains why two bodies disagree if you want to look for it. Ultimately it's on us to read further than headlines or not.
      - belval 3y ago
        This article title is fine in my opinion as it mostly covers the disagreement between two bodies as you said, but before that one I saw at least 2-3 articles this week that were just "WHO says aspartame causes cancer". That's the thing that angers people because it's obviously clickbait
  - qup 3y ago
    The answer to the question of whether aspartame is safe for humans is not fuzzy or ambiguous. We haven't found the truth for certain yet, but it will be very black and white eventually.
chomp 3y ago
> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks. Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially an issue with aspartame somewhere in there. Yes, "everything causes cancer" but I don't disagree with the WHO's decision. Something's there, even if it's negligible.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some reason, they think that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar.
  - habitue 3y ago
    Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      True. But the decision is usually between consuming a food with low calorie sweetener or with added sugar, which is what I meant to compare.
    - neaden 3y ago
      I mean, yeah, don't drink 14 cans of any kind of soda a day.
    - worik 3y ago
      > Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar Evidence?
aspartame 3y ago
Aspartame is on the WHO list for “possibly” cancer trigger. Higher up on the list is hot water for “PROBABLY” cancer trigger: https://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-cancer-trigger-says-who/ https://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-cancer...
legitster 3y ago
> Schubauer-Berigan acknowledged during a press conference with journalists Wednesday that the studies could contain flaws that skewed the results. She said the classification should be viewed as a call to conduct more research into whether aspartame can cause cancer in humans. > “Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions,” an agency spokesperson said late Thursday shortly after the WHO released its findings. I'm going to side with the FDA on this one. Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history. So for the WHO to give such a limp wristed statement calling for more research is unbelievably pandering. It's also vaguely un-scientific. Even with a 99% confidence interval, we know that 1 out of every 100 analysis studies is going to reach a false conclusion. So just based on the sheer number of studies conducted on Aspartame, we know there are going to be links that turn out inconclusive. Latching onto a small number of niche cases and ignoring the preponderance of evidence is essentially calling for infinite research. The WHO has a tendency to lean overly-cautious. And if we are being fully honest, maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist. And given the alternative is sugar which has obvious and known health side effects it's hard not to see this as some bored staff playing games.
- oxfordmale 3y ago
  A lot of your criticism seems to be playing the man rather than the ball. The WHO said a person weighing 70kg would need to consume more than between nine and 14 cans of diet soft drink per day to exceed the daily guideline. So basically the FDA and WHO are in agreement, but the WHO uses more cautious language.
  - legitster 3y ago
    Sure, but as much as the news is going to pick up this story and blow it out of proportion, I think people should kind of know they are being played with here.
    - oxfordmale 3y ago
      WHO can't be held responsible for headlines put out by newspapers. WHO declared aspartame possibly carcinogenic, putting it in the same class as mobile phone usage That means there is some limited evidence pointing in that direction, but that further studies are needed to confirm this. I don't think this statement is incorrect. In the end is all about the daily dosis, and the possibly increase in cancer (is it 0.005% or 5%). If you need to drink 40 cans to increase your cancer risk by 0.005%, it would be irrelevant for most people.
BrianHenryIE 3y ago
It is "normal" that the US allows food (additives, at least) that is banned in Europe https://archive.is/N6JI1 https://archive.is/N6JI1
- rconti 3y ago
  That's inherent any time there's any disagreement in any regulation.
- legitster 3y ago
  As a counter: I would strongly recommend people read Derek Lowe's takedown of a lot of these claims: https://corante.com/snake-oil/eight-toxic-foods-a-little-chemical-education/ https://corante.com/snake-oil/eight-toxic-foods-a-little-che...
- Semaphor 3y ago
  Tonka beans are legal over here, though. And while this lists a bunch of things we have issues with, there are also a few others that might eventually get allowed, but take a long time. Like monk fruit and alluose.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    For context, tonka is valued for its coumarin content and coumarin is maligned for its association with the active ingredient in rat poison and some medications, but is a different molecule. Coumarin is found chiefly in perfumes (functional and fine fragrance) and smells sweet and grassy. In this application, it is sold all over the world, including the US. As a flavor in food, it is banned in the US.
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      And tonka beans kinda taste like a combination of vanilla and something. Like a more complex version of it. Love it for everything sweet and it has almost (it shouldn't be heated) completely replaced vanilla for me.
- 3y ago
kakaface 3y ago
[flagged]
aa_is_op 3y ago
Americans will whitelist everything for their big-pharma.
- monetus 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
- anonporridge 3y ago
  Aspartame is a generic chemical and the US patent expired in 1992. Which big pharma companies are making big money off it?
karmaMeansCool 3y ago
I stopped drinking alcohol due to the possible cancer link seeming much greater than aspartame's link to cancer. It seems strange that the studies are much more conclusive on alcohol's role with cancer than aspartame, but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol. Part of me wonders why this is. One possible reason I see is that people's trust in the studies about aspartame are much lower than their trust in the studies about alcohol.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  > but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol This is not true, at least with the WHO. Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen according to the WHO. It definitely causes cancer. The WHO classifies aspartame in Group 2b "possibly a carcinogen." There's some confusion over how to render uncertainty here, but the WHO does not actually classify aspartame as a carcinogen.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    I think the op meant concerns amongst the general public. Yes food safety experts have more concerns about alcohol but I would guess there are a lot more people who avoid aspartame and still drink alcoholic beverages.
    - karmaMeansCool 3y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, this is exactly what I meant to convey.
- MetricExpansion 3y ago
  I think this whole thread has an interesting contrast to a prior HN thread about Alcohol being unsafe at any level of consumptions and which is rated as a Group 1 carcinogen by the WHO, a much stronger designation than has been given to Aspartame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 Choice quotes from the top three comments in that thread: 1) “To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility.” 2) “The WHO is fear mongering. Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live. Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.” 3) “The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.” I think it’s just emotional reasoning and HN having a classic case of being critical when presented with evidence that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs while being uncritical of evidence that confirms them.
morninglight 3y ago
Follow the money - Where the dollars go: Lobbying a big business for large food and beverage CPGs https://www.fooddive.com/news/where-the-dollars-go-lobbying-a-big-business-for-large-food-and-beverage-c/607982/ https://www.fooddive.com/news/where-the-dollars-go-lobbying-...
dang 3y ago
Recent and related: WHO says soda sweetener aspartame may cause cancer, but it’s safe within limits - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717961 - July 2023 (9 comments) Aspartame Is a Possible Cause of Cancer in Humans, a WHO Agency Says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717553 - July 2023 (5 comments) The WHO is about to declare aspartame can cause cancer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644185 - July 2023 (26 comments) Aspartame: Once More Unto the Breach - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36562739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36562739 - July 2023 (199 comments) Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36522471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36522471 - June 2023 (30 comments) Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519942 - June 2023 (565 comments)
atlex2 3y ago
Diet soda and sweeteners behind them are still a scam even if they don’t “cause cancer.” They’re a scam because they still cause insulin response. Pancreas cranks out insulin after tasting the soda, and there no blood sugar to react with. My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn’t mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn’t loose weight by drinking the stuff.
- atlex2 3y ago
  Update: hmm. I might be mistaken. There are articles that measure insulin levels after drinking the soda. These show no connection for diet soda. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5118762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5118762/ https://www.oatext.com/Blood-glucose-and-insulin-response-to-artificially--and-sugar-sweetened-sodas-in-healthy-men.php https://www.oatext.com/Blood-glucose-and-insulin-response-to... But there are also articles that describe what’s called “anticipatory response” to food/drink. I didn’t see an article connecting diet soda in particular to insulin response, but possibly it’s the same for things that only taste sweet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056926/
- freedomben 3y ago
  > My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn’t mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn’t loose weight by drinking the stuff. The point for most people of Diet Coke isn't to lose weight. It's to avoid the harm caused by sugar, while still having something to drink. Diet sodas are definitely way, way better for anybody with sugar senstivities or diabetes. Plain water would be better, but that doesn't make Diet Coke a "scam."
  - worik 3y ago
    > The point for most people of Diet Coke isn't to lose weight. Anecdotally I see different things. People overweight, or who fear that, use aspartame IMO
- zwieback 3y ago
zwieback 3y ago
We have an obesity epidemic, not a diet-coke-cancer epidemic in this country. I'd say the occasional can of diet soda is a good tradeoff.
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  Sorry, but have you heard about the drastic increase in the rate of young people getting colon cancer?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - zwieback 3y ago
    Sure, that's scary, but the science linking that to sweeteners is very weak. I'm not pro sweeteners but I'm anti bad public science communications.
- cwkoss 3y ago
  "occasional can of diet soda" is a minimizing strawman. I recently had a friend quit diet pepsi - he used to drink as many as 18 cans per day. I'm not sure its responsible for federal regulators to call that behavior 'safe', and am glad he's kicked the habit.
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    I don't think the regulators would call drinking 18 cans of anything a day "safe." An ingredient being safe doesn't mean you can have unlimited amounts of it with no ill effects; this isn't even true of water.
- lowbloodsugar 3y ago
  An occasional can of regular soda is also fine. The problem is mass consumption of either, and the link between soda and fatty foods. People eating salads aren’t drinking a coke of any kind. What goes great with a coke? A giant BBQ pulled pork sandwich with sloppy fries and onion rings.
cwkoss 3y ago
I would love to see a log of the communications between coca cola execs and the FDA leading up to this announcement. Even if aspartame is perfectly safe, feels like there is a strong subtext of corporate protectionism to this statement.
- voz_ 3y ago
  Only if you show me the log of wire transfers to WHO execs from the CCP lol
r930 3y ago
Aspartame increases dopamine precursors in the nervous system. Some people don't like to have people with lots of dopamine, gives one too many ideas.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Clamchop 3y ago
I have a feeling those with an existing opinion on sweeteners will choose to trust whichever agency agrees with them.
bastard_op 3y ago
If anyone of any reputable standing says something is a potential carcinogen at any level or percentage, why on earth would you continue using it at all? It's well documented aspartame is at worst "not good for you", so why allow it at all? Other than the Coke and Pepsi's that will cry murder and loss of jobs.
neonsunset 3y ago
Regardless what WHO or FDA say, Aspartame is a hazard for people prone to migraines. It took years for me to find it out and it seems this experience tracks with other posters on HN whenever the topic comes up.
greatfilter250 3y ago
[dead]
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
guerby 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36531685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36531685
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
anon373839 3y ago
Aspartame has an interesting history. This includes the fact that its FDA approval is credited to none other than Donald Rumsfeld, who hand-picked the FDA commissioner who approved aspartame while he was still CEO of the company that held the patent to it. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...

76 points by hanniabu 3y ago

Nothing to see here, FDA's spoken.

If you want to take a fun trip down a rabbit hole or two: Search the terms: {Donald Rumsfield, Aspartame } For and extra kick add the term Miraclin

Simulacra 3y ago

*Be thankful for the American government, it's the best that money can buy." -Christopher Buckley

Simulacra 3y ago
The FDA can be purchased. This is not surprising. The FDA is in the pockets of big Pharma and big food.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

My understanding is that the WHO has maintained its recommended max. daily intake, which is the equivalent of about 10 cans of soft drinks a day... make of that what you will.

jackstraw14 3y ago
I've worked with folks who sit at their desk and drink diet soda from those giant reusable 64oz cups, all day. When it's all zero calories, I guess I can see how you get there.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  That is insane, are they peeing every hour? I feel like at that point it must affect work output.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
    The stuff is caffeinated, it probably helps.
  - amethyst 3y ago
    time lost maybe nullified by increased focus and lack of fatigue due to the caffeine?
strict9 3y ago
Ask someone who has worked in a restaurant about the habits of diet coke drinkers. They always require 10x or more refills than water or soda.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anonporridge 3y ago
  Perhaps that's partially due to a feeling of moral licensing? e.g. This thing has no calories, therefore I feel justified in overindulging and drinking tons of it to let my primal urge for sweetness go unopposed.
- andy800 3y ago
  I can speak to this, anecdotally, as I read this comment, at a restaurant, on my 3rd Coke Zero refill. I realized a long time ago that I really enjoy drinking soda, and not much else. Very little interest in alcohol, sure I have some with friends but never when alone. Don't drink coffee (I have, of course, but never particularly enjoyed it or drank it regularly). I do enjoy Gatorade and fruit juice, of course it's because they are sweet. Anyway, I also realized that if I'm going to drink soda regularly, I had to switch to diet. Just for the calories, really, at the time concerns about sugar weren't as prominent. But I gained a bit of weight in my late teens and switching to Diet Coke was a "free" reduction of 500 calories per day. "Free" as in, easy to switch, no dieting, no eating less, etc. My point here is that I think the refill situation is the opposite of what you suggest -- diet soda doesn't cause me to drink more, it's the fact that I've always drank a lot of soda that caused me to choose diet soda. Oh, and maybe it's related, I love chewing on ice that has been doused in soda. A server sees an "empty" glass and wants to clear it, but I see a mountain of delicious ice. Weird, I know.
aidenn0 3y ago
7-11 at one point had a 128oz fountain drink which is more than 10 cans of soda (i.e. 120 fl oz).
- freedomben 3y ago
  Yep that's true. In the summer of '04 I worked as a Napa delivery driver, driving parts orders all over the city to mechanic shops as needed. 7-11 had a location right across the street from us, so it was common that we would make a "sev" run in the morning to get everybody caffeinated. The manager there was a badass classic parts guy that was a great guy and who did his job really well, but drank copious amounts of caffeine. 7-11 started selling an enormous 128 oz mug that we would fill with soda in the morning and drink throughout the day. That was an insane amount of soda. But my boss at the time would have me take his 128 oz mug and fill it with several pots of coffee. The clerk at sev would joke about how she had to make a couple of extra pots around 8 am because of my boss, and how "I know it's still for him even if he's too chicken to come in himself." To this day I've never known anybody that drank as much caffeine as he did. I'm guessing the nicotine from the chain smoking helped take some of the edge off :-D Those were different times.

qup 3y ago

You can believe anything you want, and cite a credible source. Peak 2023

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
Some questions have fuzzy, ambiguous answers that are subject to interpretation. It was that way last year too. It's not a reason to get frustrated with science. It's an ongoing process.
- belval 3y ago
  I don't think this is "getting frustrated with science" as much as "getting frustrated with the reporting on science". I don't think people are arguing that doing aspartame research is pointless so much as they are annoyed at the sensationalistic approach taken to report of that research. There is a large difference between "Aspartame may cause cancer" and "Aspartame may cause cancer if you drink 14 cans of diet coke a day". It's pointless distractions at best and downright fear-mongering at worse in the attempt of getting ad-revenue from clicks.
  - add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
    But "You can believe anything you want" is a personal choice, there's extra nuance that explains why two bodies disagree if you want to look for it. Ultimately it's on us to read further than headlines or not.
    - belval 3y ago
      This article title is fine in my opinion as it mostly covers the disagreement between two bodies as you said, but before that one I saw at least 2-3 articles this week that were just "WHO says aspartame causes cancer". That's the thing that angers people because it's obviously clickbait
- qup 3y ago
  The answer to the question of whether aspartame is safe for humans is not fuzzy or ambiguous. We haven't found the truth for certain yet, but it will be very black and white eventually.

chomp 3y ago

> An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks. Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? It's a ludicrous amount of aspartame/soda to be sure, but there -is- something potentially an issue with aspartame somewhere in there. Yes, "everything causes cancer" but I don't disagree with the WHO's decision. Something's there, even if it's negligible.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> Okay, but if I consume 9 to 14 cans of sugar-based soda, I don't wind up with the same cancer risk? No, you will end up with type 2 diabetes. > Something's there, even if it's negligible. Then what is the point of wasting everyone’s time with publicizing it? Just last weekend, I was with a parent who would not let her kids have sugar free popsicles, but was okay with them regularly eating sugary popsicles. For some reason, they think that a tiny bit of aspartame has a higher probability of causing her kids greater harm than a ton of refined sugar.
- habitue 3y ago
  Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    True. But the decision is usually between consuming a food with low calorie sweetener or with added sugar, which is what I meant to compare.
  - neaden 3y ago
    I mean, yeah, don't drink 14 cans of any kind of soda a day.
  - worik 3y ago
    > Tbf, unrefined sugar is just as bad as refined sugar Evidence?

aspartame 3y ago

Aspartame is on the WHO list for “possibly” cancer trigger. Higher up on the list is hot water for “PROBABLY” cancer trigger: https://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-cancer-trigger-says-who/ https://time.com/4369809/very-hot-drinks-are-probable-cancer...

legitster 3y ago

> Schubauer-Berigan acknowledged during a press conference with journalists Wednesday that the studies could contain flaws that skewed the results. She said the classification should be viewed as a call to conduct more research into whether aspartame can cause cancer in humans. > “Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions,” an agency spokesperson said late Thursday shortly after the WHO released its findings. I'm going to side with the FDA on this one. Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history. So for the WHO to give such a limp wristed statement calling for more research is unbelievably pandering. It's also vaguely un-scientific. Even with a 99% confidence interval, we know that 1 out of every 100 analysis studies is going to reach a false conclusion. So just based on the sheer number of studies conducted on Aspartame, we know there are going to be links that turn out inconclusive. Latching onto a small number of niche cases and ignoring the preponderance of evidence is essentially calling for infinite research. The WHO has a tendency to lean overly-cautious. And if we are being fully honest, maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist. And given the alternative is sugar which has obvious and known health side effects it's hard not to see this as some bored staff playing games.

oxfordmale 3y ago
A lot of your criticism seems to be playing the man rather than the ball. The WHO said a person weighing 70kg would need to consume more than between nine and 14 cans of diet soft drink per day to exceed the daily guideline. So basically the FDA and WHO are in agreement, but the WHO uses more cautious language.
- legitster 3y ago
  Sure, but as much as the news is going to pick up this story and blow it out of proportion, I think people should kind of know they are being played with here.
  - oxfordmale 3y ago
    WHO can't be held responsible for headlines put out by newspapers. WHO declared aspartame possibly carcinogenic, putting it in the same class as mobile phone usage That means there is some limited evidence pointing in that direction, but that further studies are needed to confirm this. I don't think this statement is incorrect. In the end is all about the daily dosis, and the possibly increase in cancer (is it 0.005% or 5%). If you need to drink 40 cans to increase your cancer risk by 0.005%, it would be irrelevant for most people.

BrianHenryIE 3y ago

It is "normal" that the US allows food (additives, at least) that is banned in Europe https://archive.is/N6JI1 https://archive.is/N6JI1

rconti 3y ago
That's inherent any time there's any disagreement in any regulation.
legitster 3y ago
As a counter: I would strongly recommend people read Derek Lowe's takedown of a lot of these claims: https://corante.com/snake-oil/eight-toxic-foods-a-little-chemical-education/ https://corante.com/snake-oil/eight-toxic-foods-a-little-che...
Semaphor 3y ago
Tonka beans are legal over here, though. And while this lists a bunch of things we have issues with, there are also a few others that might eventually get allowed, but take a long time. Like monk fruit and alluose.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  For context, tonka is valued for its coumarin content and coumarin is maligned for its association with the active ingredient in rat poison and some medications, but is a different molecule. Coumarin is found chiefly in perfumes (functional and fine fragrance) and smells sweet and grassy. In this application, it is sold all over the world, including the US. As a flavor in food, it is banned in the US.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    And tonka beans kinda taste like a combination of vanilla and something. Like a more complex version of it. Love it for everything sweet and it has almost (it shouldn't be heated) completely replaced vanilla for me.
3y ago

kakaface 3y ago

[flagged]

aa_is_op 3y ago

Americans will whitelist everything for their big-pharma.

monetus 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
anonporridge 3y ago
Aspartame is a generic chemical and the US patent expired in 1992. Which big pharma companies are making big money off it?

karmaMeansCool 3y ago

I stopped drinking alcohol due to the possible cancer link seeming much greater than aspartame's link to cancer. It seems strange that the studies are much more conclusive on alcohol's role with cancer than aspartame, but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol. Part of me wonders why this is. One possible reason I see is that people's trust in the studies about aspartame are much lower than their trust in the studies about alcohol.

lukeschlather 3y ago
> but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol This is not true, at least with the WHO. Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen according to the WHO. It definitely causes cancer. The WHO classifies aspartame in Group 2b "possibly a carcinogen." There's some confusion over how to render uncertainty here, but the WHO does not actually classify aspartame as a carcinogen.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  I think the op meant concerns amongst the general public. Yes food safety experts have more concerns about alcohol but I would guess there are a lot more people who avoid aspartame and still drink alcoholic beverages.
  - karmaMeansCool 3y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, this is exactly what I meant to convey.
MetricExpansion 3y ago
I think this whole thread has an interesting contrast to a prior HN thread about Alcohol being unsafe at any level of consumptions and which is rated as a Group 1 carcinogen by the WHO, a much stronger designation than has been given to Aspartame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 Choice quotes from the top three comments in that thread: 1) “To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility.” 2) “The WHO is fear mongering. Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live. Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.” 3) “The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.” I think it’s just emotional reasoning and HN having a classic case of being critical when presented with evidence that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs while being uncritical of evidence that confirms them.

morninglight 3y ago

Follow the money - Where the dollars go: Lobbying a big business for large food and beverage CPGs https://www.fooddive.com/news/where-the-dollars-go-lobbying-a-big-business-for-large-food-and-beverage-c/607982/ https://www.fooddive.com/news/where-the-dollars-go-lobbying-...

dang 3y ago

Recent and related: WHO says soda sweetener aspartame may cause cancer, but it’s safe within limits - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717961 - July 2023 (9 comments) Aspartame Is a Possible Cause of Cancer in Humans, a WHO Agency Says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36717553 - July 2023 (5 comments) The WHO is about to declare aspartame can cause cancer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644185 - July 2023 (26 comments) Aspartame: Once More Unto the Breach - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36562739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36562739 - July 2023 (199 comments) Aspartame is set to be declared a possible carcinogen - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36522471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36522471 - June 2023 (30 comments) Aspartame sweetener to be declared possible cancer risk by WHO, say reports - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519942 - June 2023 (565 comments)

atlex2 3y ago

Diet soda and sweeteners behind them are still a scam even if they don’t “cause cancer.” They’re a scam because they still cause insulin response. Pancreas cranks out insulin after tasting the soda, and there no blood sugar to react with. My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn’t mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn’t loose weight by drinking the stuff.

atlex2 3y ago
Update: hmm. I might be mistaken. There are articles that measure insulin levels after drinking the soda. These show no connection for diet soda. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5118762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5118762/ https://www.oatext.com/Blood-glucose-and-insulin-response-to-artificially--and-sugar-sweetened-sodas-in-healthy-men.php https://www.oatext.com/Blood-glucose-and-insulin-response-to... But there are also articles that describe what’s called “anticipatory response” to food/drink. I didn’t see an article connecting diet soda in particular to insulin response, but possibly it’s the same for things that only taste sweet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056926/
freedomben 3y ago
> My uncle drank tons of Diet Coke and got pancreatic cancer. Doesn’t mean diet soda caused his pancreatic cancer, but he definitely didn’t loose weight by drinking the stuff. The point for most people of Diet Coke isn't to lose weight. It's to avoid the harm caused by sugar, while still having something to drink. Diet sodas are definitely way, way better for anybody with sugar senstivities or diabetes. Plain water would be better, but that doesn't make Diet Coke a "scam."
- worik 3y ago
  > The point for most people of Diet Coke isn't to lose weight. Anecdotally I see different things. People overweight, or who fear that, use aspartame IMO
zwieback 3y ago

zwieback 3y ago

We have an obesity epidemic, not a diet-coke-cancer epidemic in this country. I'd say the occasional can of diet soda is a good tradeoff.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
Sorry, but have you heard about the drastic increase in the rate of young people getting colon cancer?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zwieback 3y ago
  Sure, that's scary, but the science linking that to sweeteners is very weak. I'm not pro sweeteners but I'm anti bad public science communications.
cwkoss 3y ago
"occasional can of diet soda" is a minimizing strawman. I recently had a friend quit diet pepsi - he used to drink as many as 18 cans per day. I'm not sure its responsible for federal regulators to call that behavior 'safe', and am glad he's kicked the habit.
- zerocrates 3y ago
  I don't think the regulators would call drinking 18 cans of anything a day "safe." An ingredient being safe doesn't mean you can have unlimited amounts of it with no ill effects; this isn't even true of water.
lowbloodsugar 3y ago
An occasional can of regular soda is also fine. The problem is mass consumption of either, and the link between soda and fatty foods. People eating salads aren’t drinking a coke of any kind. What goes great with a coke? A giant BBQ pulled pork sandwich with sloppy fries and onion rings.

cwkoss 3y ago

I would love to see a log of the communications between coca cola execs and the FDA leading up to this announcement. Even if aspartame is perfectly safe, feels like there is a strong subtext of corporate protectionism to this statement.

voz_ 3y ago
Only if you show me the log of wire transfers to WHO execs from the CCP lol

r930 3y ago

Aspartame increases dopamine precursors in the nervous system. Some people don't like to have people with lots of dopamine, gives one too many ideas.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Clamchop 3y ago

I have a feeling those with an existing opinion on sweeteners will choose to trust whichever agency agrees with them.

bastard_op 3y ago

If anyone of any reputable standing says something is a potential carcinogen at any level or percentage, why on earth would you continue using it at all? It's well documented aspartame is at worst "not good for you", so why allow it at all? Other than the Coke and Pepsi's that will cry murder and loss of jobs.

neonsunset 3y ago

Regardless what WHO or FDA say, Aspartame is a hazard for people prone to migraines. It took years for me to find it out and it seems this experience tracks with other posters on HN whenever the topic comes up.

greatfilter250 3y ago

[dead]

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]

guerby 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36531685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36531685

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

anon373839 3y ago

Aspartame has an interesting history. This includes the fact that its FDA approval is credited to none other than Donald Rumsfeld, who hand-picked the FDA commissioner who approved aspartame while he was still CEO of the company that held the patent to it. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...