4 ms·

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 threshol

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.