Aspartame to be declared potential carcinogen next month

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amity Island

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organisation’s cancer research unit, is for the first time poised to label aspartame as a potential carcinogen from July, two sources familiar with the process told Reuters.

www.independent.co.uk

Key ingredient in Diet Coke ser to be declared ‘possible cancer risk’ by WHO

World Health Organisation cancer research unit is reportedly set to declare aspartame as a potential carcinogen from next month
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
One minute it's processed food like bacon next it's something else like this artificial sweetener, personally don't pay much attention to it at all so carry on regardless.
 
They were talking about it on the BBC this morning. The doc there said it's a very low risk indeed. Like @nonethewiser I've ceased to worry about such news.
 
The IARC has classified aspartame at the lowest level of their list of carcinogens. Essentially, their research shows that if you drink 12 or more cans of, say, Diet Coke per day you have 1.1% greater chance of getting cancer.

Just living gives you a 1 in 6 chance of dying from cancer, wherever you live in the world.
 
mikeyB said:
The IARC has classified aspartame at the lowest level of their list of carcinogens. Essentially, their research shows that if you drink 12 or more cans of, say, Diet Coke per day you have 1.1% greater chance of getting cancer.

Just living gives you a 1 in 6 chance of dying from cancer, wherever you live in the world.
Click to expand...

Sums things up, logical look at risks @mikeyB
 
Yes @nonethewiser. In other fields comparisons are often, sometimes annoyingly, used. Areas are related to the number of football pitches, countries to the size of wales and volumes to Olympic sized swimming pools. Have often thought that having something similar for risk might help to get a perspective on the risks associated with announcements such as this.

One day I might come up with something that could be used.
 
Docb said:
Yes @nonethewiser. In other fields comparisons are often, sometimes annoyingly, used. Areas are related to the number of football pitches, countries to the size of wales and volumes to Olympic sized swimming pools. Have often thought that having something similar for risk might help to get a perspective on the risks associated with announcements such as this.

One day I might come up with something that could be used.
Click to expand...
The one that annoys me for risk factors is the ‘you’re more at risk crossing the road' I always feel that I can reduce the chance of being run over by looking both ways carefully, whereas some health risks aren’t particularly avoidable.
 
Amity Island said:
why the proposed announcement specifically on diet drinks? Hmmm....
Click to expand...
I'm assuming it's just where people get most of there aspartame intake but aspartame is in pretty much everything from chocolate to yoghurt to cakes etc. Being able to use that "No added sugar" health claim is huge not to mention that aspartame is massively cheaper than sugar hence increases profit margins for the producers.
 
indio02 said:
Being able to use that "No added sugar" health claim is huge
Click to expand...
We see these types of statements on many foods. Infering that the food must be healthy then.
E.g
"Contains real fruit juices"
"Sugar free"
"Low fat"
"Reduced salt"

These statements could be added to any food, be it junk, processed or healthy.
 
Nutritionist Kevin Klatt put together a detailed review of all this, with a nice discussion of the differences between "hazard" and "risk": https://kcklatt.substack.com/p/iarc-cant-be-aspar-tamed

As much as I’d like to be critical of the more fearmongering takes, the contrived approach to #scicomm coming from IARC concerning hazard vs risk is mostly to blame here and the confusion is quite predictable
 
Amity Island said:
These statements could be added to any food, be it junk, processed or healthy
Click to expand...
And I think that's the problem.... my porridge oats have no health claims on them what so ever YET Kelloggs coco pops is covered in them.... " supporting your families health" "supporting brain function" "helps reduce tiredness & fatigue" "supporting healthy bones"
 
indio02 said:
And I think that's the problem.... my porridge oats have no health claims on them what so ever YET Kelloggs coco pops is covered in them.... " supporting your families health" "supporting brain function" "helps reduce tiredness & fatigue" "supporting healthy bones"
Click to expand...
Seems foods are like people, you've got the modest, humble ones (oats) and the ones that speak highly of themselves (processed cereals).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top