Cancer risks from aspartame

Forums › Health and fitness › Cancer risks from aspartame

openmedia

3449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 878

Trusted

#306134 30-Jun-2023 13:10

This has been raised as a potential side effect for many many years and it looks like we're going to get an official statement from the WHO

I'm wondering what alternatives we're likely to see as the soft drink industry is heavily dependent on this.

Personally for strong flavours Stevia can work well, but the Stevia Coke really wasn't great.

Fingers crossed this helps reverse the sugar tax push in the UK. Almost all soft drinks have a sugar substitue, either saccharine or aspartame, and it really impacts their flavour.

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC as a Technology Evangelist and Portfolio Architect. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

hsvhel

1273 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 596

ID Verified

#3097719 30-Jun-2023 13:24

Anything from the WHO is nausea inducing

Referral Link Quic

Free Setup use R502152EQH6OK on check out

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#3097743 30-Jun-2023 13:55

Its likely to be listed as a "Possible carcinogen" which is the 3rd Tier
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/

Alcohol and processed red meat are two grades higher as "known human carcinogens"
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

The most likely result is a bunch of "warning labels" in places like California

johno1234

3352 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#3097750 30-Jun-2023 14:16

Until they can come up with something a bit less vague I'm not interested. Sugar induced obesity and diabetes are killing thousands and artificial sweeteners have a place in reducing this.

Handsomedan

7769 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7402

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3097751 30-Jun-2023 14:16

I often wonder about these reports.
One minute you can't eat eggs, next minute you should eat a dozen a week.
No fluoride, then it's a must.

Coffee is the same - one minute it's killing you, the next it's saving your life.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

johno1234

3352 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#3097753 30-Jun-2023 14:21

Handsomedan:

I often wonder about these reports.
One minute you can't eat eggs, next minute you should eat a dozen a week.
No fluoride, then it's a must.

Coffee is the same - one minute it's killing you, the next it's saving your life.

Yeah, and especially red wine. They just can't make up their minds on it.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3097755 30-Jun-2023 14:27

Handsomedan:

I often wonder about these reports.
One minute you can't eat eggs, next minute you should eat a dozen a week.
No fluoride, then it's a must.

Coffee is the same - one minute it's killing you, the next it's saving your life.

Research funded by the competitors vs research funded by the producers.

So sugar companies fund research into cancer caused by aspartame and aspartame companies fund research into diabetes.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

loceff13

1089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 340

#3097758 30-Jun-2023 14:34

johno1234:

Until they can come up with something a bit less vague I'm not interested. Sugar induced obesity and diabetes are killing thousands and artificial sweeteners have a place in reducing this.

.

iirc the amount said to possibly cause damage(increased risk of cancer) was the equivalent of drinking 24+ cans a day(8L+) so it very much does have a valid place to keep people away from sugar filled softdrink.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3097761 30-Jun-2023 15:07

loceff13:

iirc the amount said to possibly cause damage(increased risk of cancer) was the equivalent of drinking 24+ cans a day(8L+) so it very much does have a valid place to keep people away from sugar filled softdrink.

I think the problem is that, whilst it's quite certain 24 cans of aspartame-containing drinks will elevate your cancer risk by a certain percentage, it's not certain what effect drinking 1 can will have. I think there's no known safe amount of aspartame... any minute amount will raise your cancer risk (minutely). The WHO (and everyone in Public Health) don't want to be in the position of declaring something safe and then subsequently it being proved to be unsafe (even minutely). In the USA, lawyers get rich on this stuff.

Senecio

2852 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3161

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3097779 30-Jun-2023 15:19

Disclaimer: I worked in the beverage manufacturing industry for 6 years until recently. The reason I left was that I couldn't keep lying to myself and convincing myself that it was OK to keep working in an industry that was contributing to our Type 2 diabetes and obesity epidemic.

That said, what I can share is that they are making great strides in developing variations of Stevia to remove the after taste. The latest versions of Stevia really have come a long way and I believe it is the best of the sugar substitutes especially in drinks.

Myself, I actually prefer to reward myself with a full sugar soft drink rather than go for the no sugar versions. I just don't drink them very often, probably one 355mL can a week is all I would drink.

Eva888

2762 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2425

Lifetime subscriber

#3097823 30-Jun-2023 16:51

Know of someone who only ate organic food, no sugar, was super careful doing exercise etc and got cancer in her forties. I wondered if the constant stress of judging each food item contributed to her getting it. Type A personality.

Everything in moderation, avoid processed foods and words you can’t spell on the label. Eat home made food with good ingredients and enjoy a sweet treat now and then as a pat on the back.

Personally I won’t touch diet drinks, preferring juice, water and no alcohol beer nowadays.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#3097828 30-Jun-2023 17:00

openmedia:

This has been raised as a potential side effect for many many years and it looks like we're going to get an official statement from the WHO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Cancer
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/06/30/sweetener-used-in-diet-coke-to-be-deemed-potential-carcinogen/
I'm wondering what alternatives we're likely to see as the soft drink industry is heavily dependent on this.

Personally for strong flavours Stevia can work well, but the Stevia Coke really wasn't great.

Fingers crossed this helps reverse the sugar tax push in the UK. Almost all soft drinks have a sugar substitue, either saccharine or aspartame, and it really impacts their flavour.

Ifs buts and maybes. Sounds like they have flimsy proof or none at all. 'Potential' is a weasel word.

Lawyers are behind this for another revenue stream.

Even if it is carcinogenic, it must be a weak cause.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3097844 30-Jun-2023 17:07

openmedia:

This has been raised as a potential side effect for many many years and it looks like we're going to get an official statement from the WHO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Cancer
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/06/30/sweetener-used-in-diet-coke-to-be-deemed-potential-carcinogen/
I'm wondering what alternatives we're likely to see as the soft drink industry is heavily dependent on this.

Personally for strong flavours Stevia can work well, but the Stevia Coke really wasn't great.

Fingers crossed this helps reverse the sugar tax push in the UK. Almost all soft drinks have a sugar substitue, either saccharine or aspartame, and it really impacts their flavour.

the last time i looked at the WHO cancer chart the only thing that does not cause cancer is nylon

zenourn

281 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 168

ID Verified

Trusted

#3098153 1-Jul-2023 13:39

There is not by any means solid evidence here. The main observational study that this is based upon has only shown that there is a correlation between aspartame and a slight increase in the risk of cancer. This isn't by any means a causal effect.

An example I like to use is that there is a strong correlation between ice cream consumption and shark attacks. Hey, sharks must like eating people that have just eaten ice creams? Of course, it is that the lurking variable temperature causes both an increase in people eating icecream and the number of people out in the water.

In this case there could be dozens of potential lurking variables that are correlated with greater consumption of aspartame and cancer. One example is that drinkers of diet soft drinks are more likely to have metabolic syndrome and metabolic syndrome is also associated with a higher risk of cancer. Controlling for all these potential lurking variables in an observational study is impossible as you don't know what they all could be.

The number of papers that I review and see published where authors assume causation when they have only shown a correlation is rather concerning.