this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023

53 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22168 readers

12 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Aspartame sweetener used in Diet Coke a possible carcinogen, WHO’s cancer research agency to say-sources (www.reuters.com)

submitted 2 years ago by withersailor@aussie.zone to c/news

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Oh my fuck. I hate news stories like this. Aspartame falls into the same cancer risk category as eating red meat sometimes and being kinda lazy. A rigorous systematic review was conducted of dozens of studies of aspartame and they did not find a plausible biologic mechanism by which aspartame could cause cancer. Epidemiologically, it's vaguely correlated, not causative of cancer.

Also, in the Reuters article it notes that a 132-lbs adult would have to drink 12 to 36 cans of diet coke a day for the dose/exposure to become relevant to the risk they're talking about. This article is talking about one study that is at odds with the systematically reviewed data from 40 human observational studies, 12 experimental animal studies, and 1360 assay/experimental end points to look for the supposed link.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691522007475#sec5

[–] nzodd 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wait being lazy cases cancer? I'm in a lot of trouble then

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

Being lazy is vaguely kinda sorta correlated with cancer... but that doesn't account for the fact that humans who are regularly active are also less likely to make other lifestyle choices that are more significantly tied to cancer like smoking and drinking.

This is the problem with a lot of population based studies. Obesity is linked with a lot of health problems like cardiovascular disease, but only some aspects of cardiovascular disease have causative links to obesity and others are sequelae of other factors that tend to be associated with obesity. For example, extra weight/adipose puts more stress on your heart by there just being more body mass to deliver blood to and more oxygen demand from muscles to just physically move the weight around (also a cause of joint problems)... but it's the poor diet full of cholesterol that clogs up the arteries (aka atherosclerosis) causing myocardial infarction (heart attack).

[–] reric88 2 points 2 years ago

Me too especially since I drink diet to help offset my lazy!!

[–] lunarshot 7 points 2 years ago

Your answer is as good as the that headline is bad. this was a very informative and correct analysis of aspartame. kudos

[–] nanometre 5 points 2 years ago

Remember when Big Sugar(TM) did that study on how sugar is beneficial? Is this that again?

[–] voidbanana@feddit.nu 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Agree, though just because we currently have not been able to establish that something is harmful, we should still be open to reevaluating that assumption given new evidence.

Consider PFAS, which we for a long time thought was completely inert and harmless, at least after production. Only recently we've discovered or perhaps rather accepted that it has adverse effects on human health.

Another example is freon. A completely awesome product, until we found that it caused the ozone hole and we had to ban it.

[–] medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

I agree that we should always be open to new evidence, but in this case, the study parameters and methods do not appear to be any different and it is highly unlikely that further study with the same techniques will yield novel results.

[–] Mummelpuffin 3 points 2 years ago

Right? If media articles on stuff like this were all correct, literally everything but distilled water causes cancer, seemingly.

[–] StewieTheThird 6 points 2 years ago

Being completely transparent I don't care if there are any health risks associated with it for the greater population. I am just allergic to it and it gives me the worst shits possible, so if we could stop putting it in things that would be killer. It's in every gum now so I just can't buy gum anymore.

[–] Omegamanthethird 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Per the article. You have to drink 12 to 36 cans a day (depending on the individual) before it even starts having health risks.

[–] krackalot@vlemmy.net 7 points 2 years ago

So it's only a concern for Americans then?

[–] stefenauris@pawb.social 5 points 2 years ago

It wouldn't bother me too much if we got rid of all artificial sweeteners. They taste terrible and their safety has always been dubious.

[–] dill@lemmy.one 4 points 2 years ago

I'm not convinced it will give you cancer.
I am convinced you should not drink that shit.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hasn't this been known for a while or am I thinking of saccharine?

[–] HannahBecz 1 points 2 years ago

I remember my spouse about 10 years ago now telling their grandfather he shouldn't drink so much Diet Coke because the aspartame used in it could give him cancer - so I'd say it's been known a while.

[–] erre@feddit.win 1 points 2 years ago

So... which substitute is the safe one now? 😅