Aspartame is also linked in some studies to weight gain, GI disorders, mental health issues and more:

According to some studies, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners can lead to weight gain instead of weight loss 12. Aspartame has been linked to increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases 2.

One study showed that aspartame causes greater weight gain than a diet with the same calorie intake but no aspartame 1. Another study found that even acceptable daily intakes of aspartame might make you hungrier and lead to weight gain 3.

…some research suggests an association between aspartame intake and metabolic damage to the central nervous system (CNS), such as changes in enzyme and neurotransmitter activities 2. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brain’s vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health 3.

There is also some evidence that high-aspartame consumption may lead to weaker spatial orientation, irritability, depression, and other neurobehavioral conditions 14. However, these studies are limited in scope and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of aspartame on human health.

Worth researching more, especially if you eat/drink anything with this stuff - and it’s in a lot of food products.

    • @Cruxifux
      link
      English
      441 year ago

      I’m convinced that sugar companies pump bullshit about other sweeteners to sell more sugar in America.

      Like we already have sugar in fucking everything, you don’t need to ALSO propagandize the stupidest and most propagandized people in the first world.

      • @giraffebiscuit
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        I’m so happy that I’m able to make a lot of things that my family eats from scratch. Bread does not need sugar/HFCS in it to be tasty! Really the only things I buy pre made now is pasta (I’m learning how to make spaghetti noodles, but elbow noodles remain elusive lol).

        • @Cruxifux
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Yeah, the bread one annoys me. The homemade bread me and my dad make tastes 100 times better that store bought, and we don’t put sugar in it.

          It’s just a fucking scam man. I’m glad I live in Canada where it’s slightly better, but not by much.

          You can see why Americans struggle so hard with weight issues though.

      • EnglishMobster
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        We actually don’t have much in the way of sugar. Usually high fructose corn syrup is the substitute in the US, since the government subsidizes corn production. High fructose corn syrup (obviously) comes from corn, so it’s cheaper than sugar due to those government corn subsidies - meaning that not a lot of American food has sugar in it.

        • @Cruxifux
          link
          English
          131 year ago

          HFCS and sugar are almost identical, to the point where it’s not worth distinguishing from a nutritious standpoint, or in the context of what I’m trying to say here.

    • ivanafterall
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Um. Just to point out a couple of things here:

      “According to ISA, aspartame is one of the most-thoroughly researched ingredients in history…”

      ISA is the International Sweeteners Association. I hope that speaks for itself?

      And that the International Council of Beverages Association would defend it is similarly unsurprising, as they have a vested interest.

      You are minimizing a WHO body with industry shill talking points and people are upvoting it because it sounds convincing.

    • Bloonface
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      You’ve literally quoted two industry bodies who have a vested interest in keeping aspartame on the market.

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28938797/ https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/75/9/718/4101228

      The existing animal studies and the limited human studies suggest that aspartame and its metabolites, whether consumed in quantities significantly higher than the recommended safe dosage or within recommended safe levels, may disrupt the oxidant/antioxidant balance, induce oxidative stress, and damage cell membrane integrity, potentially affecting a variety of cells and tissues and causing a deregulation of cellular function, ultimately leading to systemic inflammation.

      There is controversy regarding how aspartame was passed as “safe” last century - essentially lobbying.

      The lobbying pressure pro-aspartame is significant, due to the enormous sums - profit - involved.


      CONCLUSION

      Current scientific knowledge about the safety of aspartame, as reviewed here, is based mostly on animal studies. These studies suggest that aspartame, even at recommended safe dosages, might not be safe. Several of these studies (in vitro as well as in vivo) that investigated both higher and safe dosages indicate that aspartame or its metabolites cause an oxidant/antioxidant imbalance, induce oxidative stress, and damage membrane integrity (lipid, protein, and nucleic acid), possibly affecting most cells and tissues. Aspartame is directly involved in the development of oxidative stress, which is a hallmark of systemic inflammation (Figure 3). Several animal studies have also reported a deleterious effect of aspartame exposure on body weight, adiposity, and/or glucose tolerance and insulin levels. These are summarized in a 2016 review by Fowler.125 Thus, there is a need for additional detailed human studies and comprehensive characterizations of the physiological processes affected by aspartame. This is of particular importance, as diabetic and other individuals with gut dysbiosis may already be at increased risk of systemic inflammation because of the inflammatory nature of their conditions. Data reviewed in this paper suggest that aspartame use could not only exacerbate existing systemic inflammation but also cause inflammation if healthy individuals ingest it on a regular basis.

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      -7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is not even looking at the other issues with aspartame, including possible weight gain, exacerabtion of mental health issues:

      According to some studies, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners can lead to weight gain instead of weight loss 12. Aspartame has been linked to increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases 2.

      One study showed that aspartame causes greater weight gain than a diet with the same calorie intake but no aspartame 1. Another study found that even acceptable daily intakes of aspartame might make you hungrier and lead to weight gain 3.

      . However, some research suggests an association between aspartame intake and metabolic damage to the central nervous system (CNS), such as changes in enzyme and neurotransmitter activities 2. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brain’s vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health 3.

      There is also some evidence that high-aspartame consumption may lead to weaker spatial orientation, irritability, depression, and other neurobehavioral conditions 14. However, these studies are limited in scope and further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of aspartame on human health.

        • @YellowtoOrangeOP
          link
          English
          -7
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Of course they don’t. Everyone wants RCT, but the money for RCTs is often found in big pharma, and they sure as hell don’t want to spend it on finding that very profitable food additives are disease inducing (though they may funnel money into studies that appear to show the opposite - you know this happens) or vitamins.

          This is one of the reasons why you don’t find many good quality studies, including RCTs, for cheap, natural foods or supplements. Where’s the money in that?

          Watch the first 2 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0smauGspMm4

          This is all based on studies and evidence-based medicine.

  • @Zpiritual
    link
    English
    471 year ago

    Worth point out is that it doesn’t even reach the same classification as red meat which is classified as probably causing cancer.

    • @sock
      link
      English
      161 year ago

      theres a lot of things that MIGHT cause cancer i feel like if youre drinking enough diet coke to cause cancer its not the sweetener its your impulse control

      • @meisme
        link
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean cancer is pretty much random… you can stand for 5 minutes in the sun and get skin cancer or spend 5 hours in a tanning machine and be fine (cancer wise). Doesn’t mean that going outside is dangerous or that tanning machines are safe.

      • @Zpiritual
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        For sure. Too much of most things causes all kinds of health issues. Variation and modesty is key to health imho.

    • @RGB3x3
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      I would seriously doubt any study that claims to have somehow controlled for everything so determine that red meat causes cancer. There are just way too many variables that would be contributing factors.

      Even if there was a culture that ate zero meat ever, there would also be too many lifestyle differences for it to be red meat alone accounting for a decrease in cancer rates.

      • @Zpiritual
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        There isn’t but apparently there are enough evidence to indicate that it possibly cause cancer, according to WHO at least.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    431 year ago

    It’s not this straight forward. I read the reuters article about this that goes into more detail.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/

    But basically, IARC is only looking at if the substance can be carcinogenic, regardless of the quantity it takes for it to be harmful to humans.

    There is another organization, called JECFA that is specifically for advice for individuals. This is where “food regulations” would come from.

    The JECFA is set to show off their findings at the same time as IARC is gonna make their announcement. I feel like some of you guys are jumping the gun here due to the title of the articles coming out.

  • Don Corleone
    link
    English
    361 year ago

    Don’t freak out (yet) people…

    They put aspartame in the “possibly carcinogenic” category which is their least certain one. Also in this category we have… Radio waves (sigh)… Yeah right…

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      There is also evidence that it causes weight gain, GI disorders, anxiety and more.

      Drink at your own risk.

    • NaN
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Radio waves are known to be harmful, that’s why the FCC maintains Maximum Permissible Exposure limits and every technician HAM has to learn about safe distance from a transmission source in relation to power and frequency. It is not a stretch that such RF exposure could potentially have carcinogenic properties, but that needs context, the likelihood of a cell phone is pretty much nil.

      • @we_were_never_here
        link
        English
        71 year ago

        It is not a stretch that such RF exposure could potentially have carcinogenic properties, but that needs context, the likelihood of a cell phone is pretty much nil.

        That’s not how non-ionizing radiation works. The MPE exposure limits are because you can be effectively cooked, not because you’ll get cancer. You need much more energy to do that, like UV light, X or gamma rays.

        • @MercuryUprising
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          But now OP will realize he’s been setting 5G towers on fire for nothing…

      • @Ocularias
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        But this line of logic ultimately also ends at “how much aspartame do you need to ingest before it’s bad for you?” A lot of these things end in “you need to consume an unreasonable amount for it to affect you negatively”.

        • @YellowtoOrangeOP
          link
          English
          -141 year ago

          If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

          If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

          But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

          I’m an MD and don’t touch the stuff.

        • @YellowtoOrangeOP
          link
          English
          -191 year ago

          If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

          If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

          But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

          I’m an MD and don’t touch the stuff.

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

      If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

      But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

      If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

      But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

  • @gila
    link
    English
    331 year ago

    Obesity is like the second biggest risk factor for cancers. This post reads like a non-medical professional’s interpretation of medical advice. I don’t mean to offend, because that is very common. But the information presented here is devoid of context in a way that makes it potentially misleading.

  • @HjFUN
    link
    English
    311 year ago

    Gonna try to cut a line down the middle and say I’m not seeing very convincing evidence one way versus another. Lotta finger pointing and honestly getting way more intense about diet soda than I thought anyone would.

    Gotta say that my family (and me until high school) drink wayyy to much diet soda. Like sugar, or aspartame it’s a bit worrying and when you drink caffeinated sweetness all day you’re probably going to feel defensive about someone saying it’s gonna kill you.

    I am a bit of the mind that it may only be significantly carcinogenic at super high doses, but who knows if anyone is getting those doses either from commercial beverages or mixing it in the same proportions as sugar in their iced tea

    • ColonelSanders
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Was going to say, I’m all for changing my habits/thought processes based on scientific data/evidence, but I could’ve sworn this debate has been raging on for some time now. First it was declared that it causes Cancer, then it was declared well no there’s not really enough evidence to support that, and now we’re back to it does. But I have yet to see a definitive link in any study and even this article says “possibly.”

      Now, that being said I still avoid aspartame when possible, opting for Stevia whenever I have the choice. I just fear that this kind of back and forth tends to erode credibility through unsubstantiated whiplash with the general public.

      • @Zaktor
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        As someone who would also very much like to believe that aspartame is perfectly safe, I will point out that in a controversy over “is this commercially sold product dangerous”, the side that says “no” is going to get a lot more funding than the one that says “yes”. Maybe there’s some potential financial incentive for alternative sweeteners to boost aspartame-bad studies, but the aspartame-good group is very directly backed by behemoths.

        These things aren’t easy to prove and more research (from publicly funded sources) would be good, but when you’re seeing a lot of confusing competing claims, keep in mind that industry funded research exists and it will be overwhelmingly on the side of “let us keep selling these very profitable products”.

    • therealpygon
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Wait… You mean to tell me that you don’t drink 100 Diet drinks at a time?

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      -91 year ago

      Sure, let’s wait and see what they say.

      If you drink soda, do look more into the weight gain, GI issues and anxiety side effects from aspartame.

    • younity
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      If it helps you lose weight, sure, but I think there is more going on when you realize cancer risk down but mortality up…

      Mortality
      High consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a 12% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in a 2021 meta-analysis.[64] A 2020 meta-analysis found a similar result, with the highest consuming group having a 13% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% higher risk of CVD mortality.[65]

      Zhang YB, Jiang YW, Chen JX, Xia PF, Pan A (March 2021). “Association of Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages or Artificially Sweetened Beverages with Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies”. Advances in Nutrition. 12 (2): 374–383. doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa110. PMC 8009739. PMID 33786594.

      • Chetzemoka
        link
        fedilink
        161 year ago

        I’m entertained by this sentence from your source (great source, by the way): “No significant associations were found for cancer mortality.” Lol

        Also from your source, though, to dig deeper past the study title:

        “Of note, participants in the highest levels of ASB intake were more likely to be overweight/obese, hypertensive, and hypercholesterolemic in most studies (8, 10, 11, 17, 28), and thus reverse causation was possible” meaning people already experiencing health-damaging overweight/obesity are also more likely to be replacing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) with artificially-sweetened beverages (ASB) which confounds the result that higher ASB intake is associated with higher all cause mortality. It may simply be that people who already had high mortality risk from their weight were also more likely to be consuming large amounts of ASB.

        “Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials found that low-calorie sweeteners modestly but significantly reduced body weight, BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference (23), but had no effects on blood glucose and blood lipids compared with saccharides (39)”

        “Although biological mechanisms remain inconclusive, some studies indicated detrimental effects of low-calorie sweeteners on the regulatory mechanisms of appetite and satiety, release of gastrointestinal hormones, gastric motility, and balance and diversity of gut microbiota, which may further increase energy intake and disrupt blood glucose homeostasis (40). Taken together, ASBs might be optional alternatives for SSBs only when they are consumed in small quantities for weight management, and the long-term adverse associations of high amounts of ASBs with cardiometabolic diseases and mortality should be considered”

        “Based on current evidence, SSB intakes should be avoided, and if ASBs are considered as optional alternatives for SSBs, they should be consumed in small quantities (i.e., <1.5 servings/d). Nevertheless, further high-quality studies are still warranted, particularly on the long-term impact of ASB intakes, because of limited studies and low-to-moderate quality of the current evidence.”

        So overall, a little more nuanced and not quite the knock-out punch the study title might suggest.

  • Pietrasagh
    link
    English
    29
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Barbecue sausages are also carcinogenic. What matters is how much and in what doses. Hey WHO: Show me scientific, peer revieved, reproduced in independed labs papers with solid proofs. Not preliminary results of “one research”. Then I will weigh pros and cons and decide if I should use it. Strangely decades of use under supervision of FDA and other reputable institutions had no remarks like WHO. Don’t forget that dihydrate monoxide also promote cancer, and we all drink it like water.

    /edit typo, grammar/

  • @test_scientist
    link
    English
    291 year ago

    Possible carcinogen is an extremely low standard for the WHO, this probably means close to nothing

    • @TheFreed
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      Or you will need extreme quantities for it to be something. But with that said, the few times my daughter get a soda I buy her a regular even if I drink with sweetener.

      • @tauerlund
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        The sugar is much worse for her though.

  • Required
    link
    English
    201 year ago

    Honestly nothing can be more dangerous than the OG coke. The amount of sugar in that can is incomprehensible

    • @JesusTheCarpenter
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      This is another point that no-one makes. While it is clear that the best alternative to a sweetened drink would be water, often it is the “healthier and natural” version with real sugar which is just incomparably more damaging to human bodies.

  • @ilex
    link
    English
    18
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Does aspartame cause cancer?

    In general, the American Cancer Society does not determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), but we do look to other respected organizations for help with this. Based on current research, some of these organizations have made the following determinations:

    The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that “the use of aspartame as a general purpose sweetener… is safe.”

    The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has stated, “Studies do not suggest an increased risk associated with aspartame consumption for… leukaemia, brain tumours or a variety of cancers, including brain, lymphatic and haematopoietic (blood) cancers.”

    Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link.

    • @coz
      link
      English
      16
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There was a study that found that Aspartame increased cancer risk, which was used as the base for all the current claims. The study was found to be flawed and it has not been reproduced since then, but due to confirmation bias and the desire to manipulate others the idea keeps communicating. That’s one weakness of science, you can make up research and the average person will use it to confirm their biases, even if it’s one study versus a hundred

      That being said, there may be other risks with artificial sweeteners, I’m just talking about that specific study

      Science is complicated and most people don’t know how to apply it. For example, an university graduate does not know how to read published research and how to apply it to the real world, because beyond training that needs a lot of practice and feedback. People think that hearing the news or reading the paper will let them know the truth; it won’t because they haven’t developed the capacity to do so, yet they ask for a source they can’t really understand. That’s why you are supposed to go to a professional instead of doing what you think you should do on your own

      The only people I’ve found that are worth giving sources to are PhDs or experts in their fields. Everyone else just fucks up interpreting them

      • @ilex
        link
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh shit. I replied to the wrong comment. I only meant to post that other comment to yours. My b.

  • @Deestan
    link
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    WHO is one of those organizations whose advice I wish I could take at face value, but with anything that should be science based, it only takes a few disappointing compromises to take away a lot of trust.

    Like the one time they wanted to recommend member states to consider Traditional Chinese Medicine for COVID-19 treatment

    And how their recommendations result in our country’s maternity wards try acupuncture and breathing as pain relief first, leaving mothers in debilitating pain for hours before giving them any of the real, safe, proven painkillers.

    I get the reasoning - that accepting the commonly held medical belief of e.g. China allows them to hold some authority there and be a more global force of good - but to me it just make anything they say go on the “ok interesting, I’ll fact check it later” pile.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    171 year ago

    Aspartame just like about anything is not good for you in large quantities. This probably doesn’t concern you if you just drink moderate amounts of sugar free drinks.

    • @YellowtoOrangeOP
      link
      English
      -251 year ago

      Except fo the links of aspartame to weight gain, GI disorders, anxiety and more.

        • @ilex
          link
          English
          21
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I was about to admonish you asking for a link to a linked article, BUT the author linked to a link aggregator.

          I went through all the linked article’s “abstracts.” Nothing.

          I went through a few articles. Best I found was the WHO recommending an overall less sweet diet.

          E: I found this from the WHO which summarizes evidence for reducing sugar-free sweeteners. It’s a 90 page downloadable PDF.

          I read a little of it and decided I don’t care.

          • @siriuslyred
            link
            English
            61 year ago

            I tried to read it to figure out what the quantities that are dangerous are. Might be an idiot but I couldn’t find anything in the text that supported the title

            • @ilex
              link
              English
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Title of the document or title of this post?

              And just to clarify, we’re looking for links to evidence that aspartame has an effect on “weight gain, GI disorders, anxiety and more.”

  • @stranger
    link
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • @ricdeh
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      That’s always the problem with research, or rather with insufficient consumer protection laws. It needs time to run studies and provide reliable and definitive scientific results in an academic setting, and in the meantime, millions of human beings are exposed to toxic compounds. But because research cannot really be accelerated that much without a loss in quality, we should really push for better regulation of “experimental” products.

        • @ricdeh
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          Yeah the EU supposedly regulates a lot more, but I cannot really feel much of that. In the end, we Europeans (I’m from Germany) have likely been exposed to as much aspartame as you have (assuming that you are American)

            • @ricdeh
              link
              English
              41 year ago

              That’s fair. It’s just that Europe is far from paradise as well lol, even our food regulation is way too lax in my opinion

    • Coin
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      Assuming you mean cutting soda out entirely and not just diet soda, I just want to reassure you that it does get easier. I’ve gone from drinking a can or 2 at lunch/dinner to only drinking like a handful of times a year (only at parties/events for social purposes). In my experience after the 6 month mark, soda straight up tastes bad and at that point it’s smooth sailing. Your teeth and wallet will thank you.

        • Coin
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          Ahh my bad, I misunderstood. That’s great to know!