WHO: aspartame a possible carcinogen

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

so, as expected, the nuance of context and dosage

which of course wont be how media reports it

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.