Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
WHO: aspartame a possible carcinogen
Options
Replies
-
and yet, only a year ago in a meta-analysis they published:
"As assessed in prospective cohort studies, no significant association was observed between
higher intakes of primarily NSS-containing beverages and any type of cancer (Fig. 26). "
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/97892400464291 -
The "evidence" for being "possibly carcinogenic" will come out July 14th. The WHO also recently linked sweeteners to obesity and diabetes according to their "evidence", so lets see what they've come up with this time.4
-
A quick 1 minute look found this, thought I'd share.
Updated systematic assessment of human, animal and mechanistic evidence demonstrates lack of human carcinogenicity with consumption of aspartame
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691522007475
- Animal and epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate lack of carcinogenicity with aspartame consumption.
- Review of >1300 mechanistic datasets demonstrated overall lack of genotoxicity or other plausible biologically cancer pathways.
- Collective evidence supports that aspartame consumption is not carcinogenic in humans.
This study also includes all the available evidence from the WHO in those 1300 datasets.1 - Animal and epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate lack of carcinogenicity with aspartame consumption.
-
and yet, only a year ago in a meta-analysis they published:
"As assessed in prospective cohort studies, no significant association was observed between
higher intakes of primarily NSS-containing beverages and any type of cancer (Fig. 26). "
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429
Are you saying the one a year ago when they had less knowledge is more accurate? Because why?2 -
neanderthin wrote: »The "evidence" for being "possibly carcinogenic" will come out July 14th. The WHO also recently linked sweeteners to obesity and diabetes according to their "evidence", so lets see what they've come up with this time.
I wonder if this will be like past "studies" where they inject mice with a ton of the suspect chemical and watch them die over time? Like you, I am waiting to see just how they went about this one!
LB2 -
The WHO has been slowly losing credibility over time. This and the other most recent releases have just sped that up. I am not concerned as the likelihood of suddenly discovering it is a carcinogen after the decades of study and use that have shown differently is faintingly small.3
-
Well, the WHO also classifies a hair dresser, barber, shift worker and aloe vera as "possible carcinogen" and yeah, they lost a bunch of creditability as did many other health regulators around the world during that fun time a few years ago and it's links to China and the WEF leaves a bad taste in many mouths. Anyway, can't wait for their ground breaking data. Cheers2
-
here is nuance to this - WHO isnt suddenly declaring asprtame a major risk.
It is, as was mentioned, in the category of aloe vera - which doesn't make AV a great risk either, it means there is some possible small risk in some dosage
Certainly wont stop me using it - as I think the far greater risk of ill health is from obesity which using aspartame alternative is helping me avoid
And fro diabetics the far greater risk of poorly controlled diabetes - kidney failure, heart attacks, strokes, amputations are not cancer - but cancer isnt the only health risk in life
I also wont suddenly dispute WHO's credibility because they say something I dont like - especially if I am in fact reading taht out of context.
from a report in medical article I received......
Reuters reports the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the WHO, is finalising a report that will label aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, implying there is some, albeit limited, evidence linking the sweetener to cancer.
The “2b – possibly carcinogenic to humans” classification is the third of four categories used by the IARC, sitting above “3 – not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” but behind “2a – probably carcinogenic to humans” and “1 – carcinogenic to humans”.
Epidemiologist and popular science fact-checker Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz was quick to point out the lack of evidence linking aspartame with cancer and the very low threshold for being classified as a carcinogen.
“Class 2b does not mean that something definitely or even probably causes cancer — it means that there is some suggestion that the thing could plausibly cause cancer, and perhaps a small amount of evidence indicating that it does,” he wrote.
Coconut oil soaps, aloe vera, picked vegetables and talcum powder are other carcinogens listed in category 2b of the IARC classification system, according to Mr Meyerowitz-Katz.
Mr Meyerowitz-Katz provided further examples of the extreme variation of carcinogens within the same IARC category.
“There are class 1 carcinogens that cause cancer in every person exposed to them, and other class 1s that almost never cause cancer even in massive, lifelong doses.
“For example, both processed meat and plutonium are considered class 1 carcinogens, even though the risk from bacon is decidedly lower than that posed by nuclear explosions,” he said.
2 -
Eh, meat is considered a class 2A carcinogen.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
yes, that makes sense in above classifications - so some meat in some dosage presents some risk.
ie Large amounts of processed meats is probably a bowel cancer risk,
as with aspartame, taking that in context - it doesnt say nobody should eat any meat.
it does say those at higher risk, say, people with strong family history of bowel cancer, should be mindful of eating large amounts.
0 -
Just because the WHO has been losing credibility on facebook, which from what I see is rife with conspiracy theories and people sceptical of both experts and science in general, doesn't necessarily mean the science is wrong. All cat 2b substances are those which there is insufficient evidence to show causality. So it is entirely possible it's downgraded or upgraded in future. The jury is out. Which is pretty much no change for most people's opinion anyway. Moderation is key. From their own documents:
"Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans
This category is generally used when only one of the following evaluations has been made by the Working
Group:
• limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
• sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals
• strong mechanistic evidence, showing that the agent exhibits key characteristics of human
carcinogens."
also
"the classification does not indicate the level of risk
associated with a given level or circumstance of exposure"
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IARCMonographs-QA.pdf
2 -
paperpudding wrote: »here is nuance to this - WHO isnt suddenly declaring asprtame a major risk.
It is, as was mentioned, in the category of aloe vera - which doesn't make AV a great risk either, it means there is some possible small risk in some dosage
Certainly wont stop me using it - as I think the far greater risk of ill health is from obesity which using aspartame alternative is helping me avoid
And fro diabetics the far greater risk of poorly controlled diabetes - kidney failure, heart attacks, strokes, amputations are not cancer - but cancer isnt the only health risk in life
I also wont suddenly dispute WHO's credibility because they say something I dont like - especially if I am in fact reading taht out of context.
from a report in medical article I received......
Reuters reports the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the WHO, is finalising a report that will label aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, implying there is some, albeit limited, evidence linking the sweetener to cancer.
The “2b – possibly carcinogenic to humans” classification is the third of four categories used by the IARC, sitting above “3 – not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” but behind “2a – probably carcinogenic to humans” and “1 – carcinogenic to humans”.
Epidemiologist and popular science fact-checker Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz was quick to point out the lack of evidence linking aspartame with cancer and the very low threshold for being classified as a carcinogen.
“Class 2b does not mean that something definitely or even probably causes cancer — it means that there is some suggestion that the thing could plausibly cause cancer, and perhaps a small amount of evidence indicating that it does,” he wrote.
Coconut oil soaps, aloe vera, picked vegetables and talcum powder are other carcinogens listed in category 2b of the IARC classification system, according to Mr Meyerowitz-Katz.
Mr Meyerowitz-Katz provided further examples of the extreme variation of carcinogens within the same IARC category.
“There are class 1 carcinogens that cause cancer in every person exposed to them, and other class 1s that almost never cause cancer even in massive, lifelong doses.
“For example, both processed meat and plutonium are considered class 1 carcinogens, even though the risk from bacon is decidedly lower than that posed by nuclear explosions,” he said.
Sounds like there is a large gulf between the nuance of the WHO classification and reporting and consumer understanding of what this mean. If nothing else, it's poor science communication by the WHO. Reading some of the articles, it sounds like the primary concern is not that aspartame is actually harmful, especially in the small amounts consumed, but in the consumer sentiment and market reaction to this announcement.0 -
To add to the list from others, ethanol and any alcoholic drinks are all Class 1. I don't see many giving up their wine and beer over that. I'm not particularly worried about my one drink/week habit.1
-
The_Enginerd wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »here is nuance to this - WHO isnt suddenly declaring asprtame a major risk.
It is, as was mentioned, in the category of aloe vera - which doesn't make AV a great risk either, it means there is some possible small risk in some dosage
Certainly wont stop me using it - as I think the far greater risk of ill health is from obesity which using aspartame alternative is helping me avoid
And fro diabetics the far greater risk of poorly controlled diabetes - kidney failure, heart attacks, strokes, amputations are not cancer - but cancer isnt the only health risk in life
I also wont suddenly dispute WHO's credibility because they say something I dont like - especially if I am in fact reading taht out of context.
from a report in medical article I received......
Reuters reports the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the WHO, is finalising a report that will label aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, implying there is some, albeit limited, evidence linking the sweetener to cancer.
The “2b – possibly carcinogenic to humans” classification is the third of four categories used by the IARC, sitting above “3 – not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” but behind “2a – probably carcinogenic to humans” and “1 – carcinogenic to humans”.
Epidemiologist and popular science fact-checker Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz was quick to point out the lack of evidence linking aspartame with cancer and the very low threshold for being classified as a carcinogen.
“Class 2b does not mean that something definitely or even probably causes cancer — it means that there is some suggestion that the thing could plausibly cause cancer, and perhaps a small amount of evidence indicating that it does,” he wrote.
Coconut oil soaps, aloe vera, picked vegetables and talcum powder are other carcinogens listed in category 2b of the IARC classification system, according to Mr Meyerowitz-Katz.
Mr Meyerowitz-Katz provided further examples of the extreme variation of carcinogens within the same IARC category.
“There are class 1 carcinogens that cause cancer in every person exposed to them, and other class 1s that almost never cause cancer even in massive, lifelong doses.
“For example, both processed meat and plutonium are considered class 1 carcinogens, even though the risk from bacon is decidedly lower than that posed by nuclear explosions,” he said.
Sounds like there is a large gulf between the nuance of the WHO classification and reporting and consumer understanding of what this mean. If nothing else, it's poor science communication by the WHO. Reading some of the articles, it sounds like the primary concern is not that aspartame is actually harmful, especially in the small amounts consumed, but in the consumer sentiment and market reaction to this announcement.
Not sure WHO is to blame for that.
Happens with all such - there is a meme shown on here sometimes which illustrates that.0 -
The official WHO release is out. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity and safe limits of 40 mg/kg of intake, which amounts to over 10 cans a day for the average adult.
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/who-soda-sweetener-aspartame-may-cause-cancer-but-safe-within-limits.html3 -
so, as expected, the nuance of context and dosage
which of course wont be how media reports it
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »and yet, only a year ago in a meta-analysis they published:
"As assessed in prospective cohort studies, no significant association was observed between
higher intakes of primarily NSS-containing beverages and any type of cancer (Fig. 26). "
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429
Are you saying the one a year ago when they had less knowledge is more accurate? Because why?
Just saw this. Nah, essentially the same evidence (meta analyses typically move maybe a little faster than textbook speed, so one year isn't that significant for the types of studies considered). Difference is that what I posted is from the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JEFCA) and the new cancer designation comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), both from within the WHO.0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »The official WHO release is out. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity and safe limits of 40 mg/kg of intake, which amounts to over 10 cans a day for the average adult.
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/who-soda-sweetener-aspartame-may-cause-cancer-but-safe-within-limits.html
According to this WHO site, I can safely handle 3720 mg of aspartame per day. That's 43 - 12 oz cans of Diet Mt. Dew.
I think I'm fine.0 -
As far as I know this has been a debate for about 30 yrs. At least that's how long I've been hearing about it.
Frankly I can't see how it would be harmful in moderation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions