6 ms·

> Schubauer-Berigan acknowledged during a press conference with journalists Wednesday that the studies could contain flaws that skewed the results. She said the

> 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.
    - xp84 3y ago
      Yup, and yet the thousands who will read the CNN article (ok let’s be serious, they just skim the headline) about the WHO version will “tsk tsk” at me and say “You know that stuff gives you cancer,” while ingesting dozens of supplements that haven’t even been tested for safety because they’re unregulated.
wredue 3y ago
The WHO does have a tendency to lean overly cautious. But you have to remember that the FDA is not working for YOUR best interest either. When the FDA says that something is “safe”, what it actually means is “the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a lifetime”. So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA. The WHO isn’t under the same lobbying or economic pressures, and approach their statements from entirely different perspectives than the FDA.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > “the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a lifetime” I mean, how else would you define "safe"? I have trouble imagining something both unsafe and has no ecconomic impact.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Even if true, isn't economic impact just a proxy for human harm since the more working and healthy humans the better?
- klodolph 3y ago
  The FDA has a history of being cautious as well. Perhaps even overly cautious. > So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA. I would love to see some kind of foundation for this, to explain where your beliefs about FDA processes are coming from.
  - DarknessFalls 3y ago
    Yes, because there's nothing wrong with anything they've greenlit before, like high fructose corn syrup.
    - Clamchop 3y ago
      It's sugar. They so far haven't been in the business of forcing food to be healthier, to my knowledge, and corn syrup isn't poison.
Alex3917 3y ago
> Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history You could almost say that it's the Lance Armstrong of food additives.
- yetanotherloser 3y ago
  That's hilarious.
- fuzzylightbulb 3y ago
  This is genuinely hilarious. Well done.
- kriberg 3y ago
  Ooof, that's a lot of shade to throw on aspartame.
mrleinad 3y ago
> And given the alternative is sugar No, the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. We don't need sweeteners.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- serf 3y ago
  >the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. people seek replacements when things they like become scarce, not alternatives. asking the public-at-large to wholly change preference (especially when the preference is compounded by biological bias in the way we experience taste..) will never be effective without extenuating circumstance or market control of some sort. I sympathize with your point -- people should try to enjoy things without a lot of excess sweetness -- but it doesn't align with reality.
  - xorbax 3y ago
    People should think what I want them to think! After the FDA tells me how to tell them what I want them to think
- xen0 3y ago
  Like alcohol?
  - mrleinad 3y ago
    I don't understand your point, but alcohol is not safe either.
    - xen0 3y ago
      A sarcastic 'careful what you wish for'. But to say the solution for people liking something evolution has made us like is to like things evolution made us avoid is... weird? For some people, some bitter tastes are intense; no amount of 'learning' will ever get me to like coffee for example.
fatfingerd 3y ago
The only alternative isn't sugar. We need to back away from this whole project. We don't need to have everything taste like candy,
- justrealist 3y ago
  It's not the job of the FDA or WHO to tamper with scientific evidence to push people in that direction. That's how people lose trust in the institutions of science.
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    The WHO should hold back on condemning universal sweetening that will make it impossible for anyone to tally the amount they've consumed because people might go back to sugar? They should lie or they should say this path is also probably unsafe? I don't really see anything inconsistent with the WHO or the FDA statements. The WHO wants health across contingencies and the FDA wants to sell diabetes causing drinks to the maximum extent that they don't provably hurt health.
chrisco255 3y ago
I agree, but studies have nowhere close to a 99% confidence interval. Half or more of these types of studies reach false conclusions and are not reproducible.
autoexec 3y ago
> Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history. I don't understand this talking point, but I see it repeated often. Aspartame has only been approved since the 70s and was only discovered in the 1960s. The total of all the years of use/research into Aspartame doesn't even amount to a single human lifespan. It's barely over half of one! How the hell are we supposed to have any idea of the long term effects from that? In terms of "most scrutinized chemical in history" I don't think Aspartame has a chance against chemicals like water or ethanol.
- zer8k 3y ago
  This is simply conjecture but there have been numerous studies done it. Moreover, it's the most consumed artificial sweetener in the world. In this case, you'd think at least some cases of cancer would appear even by chance related to it. Yet, as far as I know, we really haven't seen any that stood up to statistical rigor. From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? I'd say that sample size is enough to draw a reasonable conclusion from. I may be wrong in my assumption here but the amount of aspartame needed to cause these types of things is insane. The amount of aspartame you would need to consume to even approach a level considered mildly hazardous with this new data would be 14 sodas.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? The few people who started drinking it as teens and adults in the 1970s are now only in their 50s and 60s, and the generations after that have only been drinking it for a few decades. That isn't much data at all to judge long term impacts. 50 years is nothing, and a lot about our consumption of aspartame has changed drastically over that time. In the 1970s people weren't drinking 3-6 cans of diet soda a day. The average American today is drinking a bit less than the 58 gallons of soda a year that we drank in the 90s, but it's still a lot more than was being consumed for the first decade or two since aspartame was added. Personally, I don't even drink soda and so I have no skin in this game whatsoever. I honestly have no idea what the long term risks of Aspartame are, I just doubt anyone could have much confidence with less than 50 years of research. I can say that it seems highly unlikely that there are dire short term effects at least, but I have nothing but sympathy for those who are skeptical considering that companies routinely buy research to show whatever conclusions they want to see while burying any results that are unfavorable and the FDA often seems to care more about protecting profits than human lives. We've seen again and again that companies are willing to knowingly poison people and that regulatory agencies are ineffective at protecting us from it, so I can't blame anyone for being cautious. Considering that the WHO's stance of "possible carcinogen" isn't a strong claim in the first place and the recommendation for additional research can't hurt anyway it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
wila 3y ago
> maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist Ugh those elite Europeans who want to play it safe.. what's wrong with them?
slowmovintarget 3y ago
The WHO seems to be following the science, the FDA seems to be following cough something else. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/ Check the table near the end: - Genotoxicity - Neurodegneration - Neurotransmission disruption - Hormone disruption (including early menstruation in girls < 10yrs old) No... It's not safe.
- upsidesinclude 3y ago
  This is the part that is so utterly maddening. People will sit and argue the carcinogenic potential and completely ignore they're discussing poison. As if cancer is the only factor that could be of concern. Notice your comment is down at the far end of the pile, while above psuedointellectuals fiegn insight into FDA & WHO motivations. Endocrine & hormone disrupting, toxic compounds, but wait for it, hasn't been studied yet -> "there's no evidence" of harmful effect -> food safe EU already banned a whole host of additives the US public gladly gorges on because we want red drank
wdr1 3y ago
The WHO lost credibility to me when they, at the height of the pandemic, asserted as fact that COVID is not airborne. Not "we believe", "we suspect", "data suggests" or anything like that, but asserted it as a fact.
hilbert42 3y ago
"I'm going to side with the FDA on this one." Likewise. I like to hold a suspicions mind about chemicals introduced into diets until proved safe, and sometimes their dangers can take decades to manifest. However, from aspartame's structure and its metabolites (phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol) it's difficult to see how it could be dangerous except in huge amounts. The worst being methanol and no doubt it's very nasty but the body is well adapted to metabolizing small amounts of methanol from the breakdown of normal foods. It seems unlikely anyone could consume enough aspartame to be harmful. I'm a lot more suspicious about sucralose (chlorinated sucrose), it seems to me we ought to be much more concerned with what its three Cl atoms do during its metabolism. Edit: seems to me WHO ought to concentrate time on reducing the population's 'bliss point' from its all-time high. Over the last 50/60 years corporations have forced up the bliss point by making drinks etc. sweeter and sweeter. We desperately need to wean the population from this high point back to more normal levels. Then we wouldn't need as much sweeteners whether natural or artificial.

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.
  - xp84 3y ago
    Yup, and yet the thousands who will read the CNN article (ok let’s be serious, they just skim the headline) about the WHO version will “tsk tsk” at me and say “You know that stuff gives you cancer,” while ingesting dozens of supplements that haven’t even been tested for safety because they’re unregulated.

wredue 3y ago

The WHO does have a tendency to lean overly cautious. But you have to remember that the FDA is not working for YOUR best interest either. When the FDA says that something is “safe”, what it actually means is “the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a lifetime”. So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA. The WHO isn’t under the same lobbying or economic pressures, and approach their statements from entirely different perspectives than the FDA.

bawolff 3y ago
> “the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a lifetime” I mean, how else would you define "safe"? I have trouble imagining something both unsafe and has no ecconomic impact.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Even if true, isn't economic impact just a proxy for human harm since the more working and healthy humans the better?
klodolph 3y ago
The FDA has a history of being cautious as well. Perhaps even overly cautious. > So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA. I would love to see some kind of foundation for this, to explain where your beliefs about FDA processes are coming from.
- DarknessFalls 3y ago
  Yes, because there's nothing wrong with anything they've greenlit before, like high fructose corn syrup.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    It's sugar. They so far haven't been in the business of forcing food to be healthier, to my knowledge, and corn syrup isn't poison.

Alex3917 3y ago

> Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history You could almost say that it's the Lance Armstrong of food additives.

yetanotherloser 3y ago
That's hilarious.
fuzzylightbulb 3y ago
This is genuinely hilarious. Well done.
kriberg 3y ago
Ooof, that's a lot of shade to throw on aspartame.

mrleinad 3y ago

> And given the alternative is sugar No, the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. We don't need sweeteners.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
serf 3y ago
>the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. people seek replacements when things they like become scarce, not alternatives. asking the public-at-large to wholly change preference (especially when the preference is compounded by biological bias in the way we experience taste..) will never be effective without extenuating circumstance or market control of some sort. I sympathize with your point -- people should try to enjoy things without a lot of excess sweetness -- but it doesn't align with reality.
- xorbax 3y ago
  People should think what I want them to think! After the FDA tells me how to tell them what I want them to think
xen0 3y ago
Like alcohol?
- mrleinad 3y ago
  I don't understand your point, but alcohol is not safe either.
  - xen0 3y ago
    A sarcastic 'careful what you wish for'. But to say the solution for people liking something evolution has made us like is to like things evolution made us avoid is... weird? For some people, some bitter tastes are intense; no amount of 'learning' will ever get me to like coffee for example.

fatfingerd 3y ago

The only alternative isn't sugar. We need to back away from this whole project. We don't need to have everything taste like candy,

justrealist 3y ago
It's not the job of the FDA or WHO to tamper with scientific evidence to push people in that direction. That's how people lose trust in the institutions of science.
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  The WHO should hold back on condemning universal sweetening that will make it impossible for anyone to tally the amount they've consumed because people might go back to sugar? They should lie or they should say this path is also probably unsafe? I don't really see anything inconsistent with the WHO or the FDA statements. The WHO wants health across contingencies and the FDA wants to sell diabetes causing drinks to the maximum extent that they don't provably hurt health.

chrisco255 3y ago

I agree, but studies have nowhere close to a 99% confidence interval. Half or more of these types of studies reach false conclusions and are not reproducible.

autoexec 3y ago

> Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history. I don't understand this talking point, but I see it repeated often. Aspartame has only been approved since the 70s and was only discovered in the 1960s. The total of all the years of use/research into Aspartame doesn't even amount to a single human lifespan. It's barely over half of one! How the hell are we supposed to have any idea of the long term effects from that? In terms of "most scrutinized chemical in history" I don't think Aspartame has a chance against chemicals like water or ethanol.

zer8k 3y ago
This is simply conjecture but there have been numerous studies done it. Moreover, it's the most consumed artificial sweetener in the world. In this case, you'd think at least some cases of cancer would appear even by chance related to it. Yet, as far as I know, we really haven't seen any that stood up to statistical rigor. From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? I'd say that sample size is enough to draw a reasonable conclusion from. I may be wrong in my assumption here but the amount of aspartame needed to cause these types of things is insane. The amount of aspartame you would need to consume to even approach a level considered mildly hazardous with this new data would be 14 sodas.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? The few people who started drinking it as teens and adults in the 1970s are now only in their 50s and 60s, and the generations after that have only been drinking it for a few decades. That isn't much data at all to judge long term impacts. 50 years is nothing, and a lot about our consumption of aspartame has changed drastically over that time. In the 1970s people weren't drinking 3-6 cans of diet soda a day. The average American today is drinking a bit less than the 58 gallons of soda a year that we drank in the 90s, but it's still a lot more than was being consumed for the first decade or two since aspartame was added. Personally, I don't even drink soda and so I have no skin in this game whatsoever. I honestly have no idea what the long term risks of Aspartame are, I just doubt anyone could have much confidence with less than 50 years of research. I can say that it seems highly unlikely that there are dire short term effects at least, but I have nothing but sympathy for those who are skeptical considering that companies routinely buy research to show whatever conclusions they want to see while burying any results that are unfavorable and the FDA often seems to care more about protecting profits than human lives. We've seen again and again that companies are willing to knowingly poison people and that regulatory agencies are ineffective at protecting us from it, so I can't blame anyone for being cautious. Considering that the WHO's stance of "possible carcinogen" isn't a strong claim in the first place and the recommendation for additional research can't hurt anyway it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

wila 3y ago

> maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist Ugh those elite Europeans who want to play it safe.. what's wrong with them?

slowmovintarget 3y ago

The WHO seems to be following the science, the FDA seems to be following cough something else. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/ Check the table near the end: - Genotoxicity - Neurodegneration - Neurotransmission disruption - Hormone disruption (including early menstruation in girls < 10yrs old) No... It's not safe.

upsidesinclude 3y ago
This is the part that is so utterly maddening. People will sit and argue the carcinogenic potential and completely ignore they're discussing poison. As if cancer is the only factor that could be of concern. Notice your comment is down at the far end of the pile, while above psuedointellectuals fiegn insight into FDA & WHO motivations. Endocrine & hormone disrupting, toxic compounds, but wait for it, hasn't been studied yet -> "there's no evidence" of harmful effect -> food safe EU already banned a whole host of additives the US public gladly gorges on because we want red drank

wdr1 3y ago

The WHO lost credibility to me when they, at the height of the pandemic, asserted as fact that COVID is not airborne. Not "we believe", "we suspect", "data suggests" or anything like that, but asserted it as a fact.

hilbert42 3y ago

"I'm going to side with the FDA on this one." Likewise. I like to hold a suspicions mind about chemicals introduced into diets until proved safe, and sometimes their dangers can take decades to manifest. However, from aspartame's structure and its metabolites (phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol) it's difficult to see how it could be dangerous except in huge amounts. The worst being methanol and no doubt it's very nasty but the body is well adapted to metabolizing small amounts of methanol from the breakdown of normal foods. It seems unlikely anyone could consume enough aspartame to be harmful. I'm a lot more suspicious about sucralose (chlorinated sucrose), it seems to me we ought to be much more concerned with what its three Cl atoms do during its metabolism. Edit: seems to me WHO ought to concentrate time on reducing the population's 'bliss point' from its all-time high. Over the last 50/60 years corporations have forced up the bliss point by making drinks etc. sweeter and sweeter. We desperately need to wean the population from this high point back to more normal levels. Then we wouldn't need as much sweeteners whether natural or artificial.