The International Agency for Research on Cancer identified a possible link between aspartame and a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma.
They’ve been saying aspartame is carcinogenic for decades now. If further research is needed, then why are food producers still able to use it? Seems to me like if they suspect that it’s carcinogenic, that it should be restricted until they can prove it’s safe for consumption.
Most of the claims of artificial sweeteners being carcinogenic come from the sugar industry, if I’m not mistaken. There are plenty of epidemiological studies they show no increases in cancer among populations that consume artificially sweetened drinks compared to those who don’t.
They have never said it is carcinogenic. They’re saying it may be carcinogenic, due to a tentative correlation with hepatocellular carcinoma. And they’re also saying it appears to be safe if you’re consuming a reasonable amount of it.
The problem is that it’s always depending on the dose.
Fictional example: You can show an increased cancer risk in animal testing if amount x is consumed regularly.
But then X is also the equivalent to 20% your body weight in sugar per day.
So now you don’t just suspect it’s carcinogenic, you know. But it’s still completely irrelevant when used as an ingredient in food obviously.
That’s basically like saying we need more studies on the toxicity of water as we know it is indeed toxic if you consume too much.
Because you would need to drink at least 24 cans of diet soda every day, probably more like 36, for an extended period of time, for there to be any significant risk.
It is safe for consumption at the levels that any sane person would ever consume.
They’ve been saying aspartame is carcinogenic for decades now.
Thing is, “they” (scientists) haven’t. The general public just kind of assume it is because “unnatural”. Study after study has not shown any effect, with this study being notable mainly because it does.
They’ve been saying aspartame is carcinogenic for decades now. If further research is needed, then why are food producers still able to use it? Seems to me like if they suspect that it’s carcinogenic, that it should be restricted until they can prove it’s safe for consumption.
Most of the claims of artificial sweeteners being carcinogenic come from the sugar industry, if I’m not mistaken. There are plenty of epidemiological studies they show no increases in cancer among populations that consume artificially sweetened drinks compared to those who don’t.
They have never said it is carcinogenic. They’re saying it may be carcinogenic, due to a tentative correlation with hepatocellular carcinoma. And they’re also saying it appears to be safe if you’re consuming a reasonable amount of it.
The problem is that it’s always depending on the dose.
Fictional example: You can show an increased cancer risk in animal testing if amount x is consumed regularly. But then X is also the equivalent to 20% your body weight in sugar per day.
So now you don’t just suspect it’s carcinogenic, you know. But it’s still completely irrelevant when used as an ingredient in food obviously.
That’s basically like saying we need more studies on the toxicity of water as we know it is indeed toxic if you consume too much.
Because you would need to drink at least 24 cans of diet soda every day, probably more like 36, for an extended period of time, for there to be any significant risk.
It is safe for consumption at the levels that any sane person would ever consume.
Thing is, “they” (scientists) haven’t. The general public just kind of assume it is because “unnatural”. Study after study has not shown any effect, with this study being notable mainly because it does.