468
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MrSangrief@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hazzardis@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Like how cancerous is it? Considering the amount of diet pop my family consumes…I’m kinda worried

[-] Fingerthief@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m pretty sure the last I read about this it was an absurd concentration that showed to potentially cause cancer. Nothing a human could drink in such concentrations.

That being said maybe that’s changed very very recently, I’ll be interested to see what their actual findings are.

A lot of things potentially cause cancer in huge concentrations.

Edit - From what I’ve read aspartame would be considered a possible carcinogen in the same class of Coffee. That doesn’t make quite the same headline though hah!

[-] PunchEnergy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

It doesn't even take that much sunlight really.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

I figured if it was really all that bad it would have been banned a long time ago.

[-] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Lead was used way past discovering it was dangerous, and is still used enough to cause problems in specific populations. Just like cigarettes. If there is a large moneymaking industry and it suddenly comes to light that what it is producing is dangerous, they have a lot of motivation to put money behind keeping that knowledge from getting out or, when it does, keep it from affecting law. They lobby/bribe, they abuse the legal system, whatever they can to avoid going under. As such, it's not safe to assume that something is not dangerous simply because it hasn't been banned.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Was there a denialism effort about lead? As far as I know there just were no regulators to crack down on it back in the day. It's still used in things where it's impractical to replace and in theory is disposed of carefully.

With cigarettes, I seem to remember that a branch of the US government declared them unsafe in the 70's. Academics usually will raise the alarm in a big way if they find something really dangerous and it's not dealt with swiftly. Legislators can be a different matter (see cigarettes, climate change and so on), but when it comes to food don't tend to get involved.

[-] DFTBA_FTW@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The Roman's used to add lead acetate to their wines to make them sweet. There's records of people at the time noting that drinking to much of this lead sweented wine seems to cause issues. So humanity has known that lead isn't necessarily a good thing for the human body for a very long time.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep. They also used mercury to refine gold, and just accepted that gold mine slaves died a lot for some reason. There was no Roman labs doing actual toxicity testing, though, and definitely no Roman FDA.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn't take much for the WHO to classify something as a possible carcinogen.

Aspartame is now in the same risk category as cell phones, kimchee, and carpentry. And still considered less carcinogenic than meat, fried foods, hot beverages, and working a night shift.

[-] DrinkBoba@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Not gonna preach or anything but that stuff is trash. You guys should quit honestly. I “reset” my tastes to less sweet stuff over time and it’s incredible how different things taste after you lose the expectations they should be sweet to be delicious.

[-] SuperZutsuki@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I eat my morning oats with unsweetened soy milk and cow's milk now tastes like candy to me.

[-] DrinkBoba@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah seriously it’s nuts how used to sugar we get

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

That will be the most important factor: the quantity needed to be harmful.

If it's the equivalent of 30 cans of diet cola a day, this is a non-issue. They will give those details when they release the report.

[-] fluke@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Aspartame has been in common usage as a sugar alternative for literally decades.

If it was harmful or potent enough to be dangerous on a public or individual health risk then we would have certainly known about it by now. At this stage, even WHO, are saying it's needed in HUGE concentrations.

Diet sodas aren't the only things that we consume that contains aspartame. And aspartame isn't the only thing we're exposed to that has been linked to cancer and other deseases.

Just get on with life, enjoy what you enjoy in moderation. Don't put too much thought into it otherwise you'll just end up living in fear and avoiding everything.

[-] sweBers@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

That was my gut reaction, but that logic also perpetuated leaded fuel.

[-] fluke@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lead's affects were well known, just ignored.

Aspartame is no different to any other food or substance we're exposed to. You can't buy anything in California that's doesn't have the 'Known to cause cancer' label on it.

Honestly, the rise in the diagnosis of cancer in industrial humans is a result of living longer and not being killed by something else.

Basically, what I'm saying is that as long as you live in moderation and overall healthy, a couple of pints of Diet Cola a day or a bottle of wine on a weekend isn't going to kill you.

From annectdotal experience, the people who get the most knotted up about this stuff probably sit down all day and eat absolute crap. The aspartame is not the thing to worry about in that equation.

[-] whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Not cancerous whatsoever. It's approved for use worldwide and it's one of the most studied additives on the planet.

It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.

Like the other "scary" "it causes cancer" studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it's carcinogenic.

Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human's bodyweight.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Faaar less than red meat, alcohol and spending time in the Sun.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Me too. I drink a lot of it daily.

[-] LearysFlyingSaucer@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Same here. My wife and I only really drink water but her stepdad got bladder cancer after decades of drinking nothing but Budweiser and diet dew. He's cancer free now but lost his bladder and prostate.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Don't panic until the report officially locked out. We are very certain that smoking and pork cause cancer, but smoking has a huge possibility of lung cancer while pork only increases your chances of cancer by something like 20%. This could be one of those "We are 99.999% certain that it increases your risk by 10%" sort of things.

[-] Rusticus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

At most 1.15 x risk. Bigger effects are on risk for diabetes, heart disease and metabolic syndrome. By itself aspartame doesn’t appear to be too bad. But it causes sugar craving which can lead to excessive and poor eating habits.

this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
468 points (93.3% liked)

World News

32327 readers
486 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS