4 ms·

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

by 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.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years. Unless there is reason to think it's a threshold effect - no impact until X level of consumption. I'm not sure whether there is, but even if the impact is "causes cancer after 100 years", we would likely see some signs in some people after 50. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the volume of studies haven't shown small effects increasing over cohort duration. The Ockham's Razor here - the bigger the causative effect, the more signal it should have.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years. I think that's the argument the WHO is making. That given what we've learned over the last ~50 years it does seem possible that aspartame is increasing the rate of certain cancers. It's a pretty modest claim and they think it's worthy of more research. I find that hard to argue against. What's the harm in a bunch of independent researchers spending some time studying the long term impacts of aspartame? If it turns out the effect is very small, or non-existent it won't change anything. People can just feel more confident about chugging down gallons of diet soda every year. If it turns out that a bunch of people drinking aspartame end up with cancers after 70 years when they wouldn't have otherwise, we'd know how to prevent that for the next generation. Scientists get work, we get answers. Seems like a win/win.
yetanotherloser 3y ago
There have hardly been 4 generations of aspartame consumers, since quite a few of the 1970s generation are still with us (would it be more or less if they'd had no aspartame? I have no idea, do you?) and mass use didn't kick in until later anyway.

by zer8k 3y ago

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.

edmundsauto 3y ago
Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years. Unless there is reason to think it's a threshold effect - no impact until X level of consumption. I'm not sure whether there is, but even if the impact is "causes cancer after 100 years", we would likely see some signs in some people after 50. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the volume of studies haven't shown small effects increasing over cohort duration. The Ockham's Razor here - the bigger the causative effect, the more signal it should have.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years. I think that's the argument the WHO is making. That given what we've learned over the last ~50 years it does seem possible that aspartame is increasing the rate of certain cancers. It's a pretty modest claim and they think it's worthy of more research. I find that hard to argue against. What's the harm in a bunch of independent researchers spending some time studying the long term impacts of aspartame? If it turns out the effect is very small, or non-existent it won't change anything. People can just feel more confident about chugging down gallons of diet soda every year. If it turns out that a bunch of people drinking aspartame end up with cancers after 70 years when they wouldn't have otherwise, we'd know how to prevent that for the next generation. Scientists get work, we get answers. Seems like a win/win.

yetanotherloser 3y ago

There have hardly been 4 generations of aspartame consumers, since quite a few of the 1970s generation are still with us (would it be more or less if they'd had no aspartame? I have no idea, do you?) and mass use didn't kick in until later anyway.