I disagree with the ‘massive’ exposure ‘needed’ to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.

I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don’t want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.

the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).

This is why I hate rodent studies. They always up the exposure to whatever they are testing to hyper-extreme limits. Then point their flawed results to the world and declare “See! X causes Y!”

There are even similar rat studies for marijuana that try to link it to cancer as well, despite the fact that zero people have actually died from weed. It’s all overblown bullshit.

Also note most people are choosing between sugar and aspartame or another sweetener, and sugar is pretty much categorically a health risk for humans.

Is that a measurement relative to mass/size? Because if not, you’d need to consume a shitload of it to really do anything.

There’s a ton of studies with these problems. Researchers simply engrossing the test subject in the material until something bad happens. Unless you’re researching on a test group of humans, then suddenly all the levels are actually less than typical.

It all depends if you’re looking to prove that it’s harmful or not. Want to find it’s harmful? Get a bunch of mice and expose them to as much of whatever substance you need to in order to find a problem… Want to prove something is safe, set up a “double blind” study of the effects on humans, and give half of them regulated and limited doses of it for weeks or months until you can convince everyone that “nothing bad happened”.

I have a problem with research done in either way. Researchers should be neutral, and just test and let the data speak for itself. (With limited interpretation for the people who read it)

Instead, almost all research is funded by someone with an agenda who is trying to find out if x is good/bad, and prove or disprove a specific stance. Argh

Still proves it may cause cancer, the only thing seriously in question is the dose. Seemingly nobody knows what a safe upper bound is for any population.

Hello Cocacola CEO

Probably just enough for California to give it that label, and that’s about it.

I hate the chemical aftertaste of artificial sweeteners anyway.

There’s still other zero calorie sweeteners though. Sucralose, stevia, saccharine, Monk fruit extract, etc.

Every paragraph of that article got less and less certain about the results. Someday I’d love to be able to trust the headline.

I worry about the “natural” sugar alternatives. We all know that aspartame is safe, it’s been researched about as extensively as it can be. It only starts to be a concern when you’re drinking 2 dozen diets sodas daily.

But people give “natural” a pass for some reason.

Which is no sugar. So wheres the Problem?

Newspaper recently said sucralose cause DNA damage.

Hah, I got that reference. “I’m not crazy. You’re the one that’s crazy.”

In my area they phased aspartame back into Diet Pepsi, which pleases me. I unabashedly love aspartame sweetener.

I’m pretty sure the last I read about this it was an absurd concentration that showed to potentially cause cancer. Nothing a human could drink in such concentrations.

That being said maybe that’s changed very very recently, I’ll be interested to see what their actual findings are.

A lot of things potentially cause cancer in huge concentrations.

Edit - From what I’ve read aspartame would be considered a possible carcinogen in the same class of Coffee. That doesn’t make quite the same headline though hah!

It doesn’t take much for the WHO to classify something as a possible carcinogen.

Aspartame is now in the same risk category as cell phones, kimchee, and carpentry. And still considered less carcinogenic than meat, fried foods, hot beverages, and working a night shift.

Less cancerous than bacon, alcohol, or Canadian air.

Not gonna preach or anything but that stuff is trash. You guys should quit honestly. I “reset” my tastes to less sweet stuff over time and it’s incredible how different things taste after you lose the expectations they should be sweet to be delicious.

That will be the most important factor: the quantity needed to be harmful.

If it’s the equivalent of 30 cans of diet cola a day, this is a non-issue. They will give those details when they release the report.

Aspartame has been in common usage as a sugar alternative for literally decades.

If it was harmful or potent enough to be dangerous on a public or individual health risk then we would have certainly known about it by now. At this stage, even WHO, are saying it’s needed in HUGE concentrations.

Diet sodas aren’t the only things that we consume that contains aspartame. And aspartame isn’t the only thing we’re exposed to that has been linked to cancer and other deseases.

Just get on with life, enjoy what you enjoy in moderation. Don’t put too much thought into it otherwise you’ll just end up living in fear and avoiding everything.

Not cancerous whatsoever. It’s approved for use worldwide and it’s one of the most studied additives on the planet.

It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.

Like the other “scary” “it causes cancer” studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it’s carcinogenic.

Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human’s bodyweight.

Faaar less than red meat, alcohol and spending time in the Sun.

Me too. I drink a lot of it daily.

Don’t panic until the report officially locked out. We are very certain that smoking and pork cause cancer, but smoking has a huge possibility of lung cancer while pork only increases your chances of cancer by something like 20%. This could be one of those “We are 99.999% certain that it increases your risk by 10%” sort of things.

Same here. My wife and I only really drink water but her stepdad got bladder cancer after decades of drinking nothing but Budweiser and diet dew. He’s cancer free now but lost his bladder and prostate.

At most 1.15 x risk. Bigger effects are on risk for diabetes, heart disease and metabolic syndrome. By itself aspartame doesn’t appear to be too bad. But it causes sugar craving which can lead to excessive and poor eating habits.

Yeah, they came out and branded it as a “possible cause for cancer”. They’ve been studying aspartame for decades now and most they could label it with was a mere “possible”. I’m not saying it’s great to drink it when surely nowadays you can find alternative sodas sweetened with stevia or other “natural” sweeteners but I wouldn’t worry too much about this news.

Am glad they publish this, though. “Possible” still tells me to be careful.

If I consider “possible” as no harm until it’s 100% proven, I might cause serious harm to myself in the process when and if it’s 100% clear.

Better on the side of caution, IMO.

Embrace water. Become a hydro homie.

You can always just drink water

Saccharine (Sweet 'n Low) was the big scare back then.

It turned out it did cause cancer… in rats… if you force fed them some crazy amount like 400x normal.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185898/

“humans would need to drink the equivalent of 800 twelve-ounce diet sodas with saccharin daily to reach the carcinogenic doses that induced rat bladder cancer.”

According to the article, yes, comprehensive studies showed it was strongly correlated to brain tumors back in the 90s. However big companies lobbied and did their own “research” to bury the studies that quite conclusively showed aspartame caused cancer.

I seem to remember reading a cancer warning on diet soda cans in the late 80’s. Thought it was in reference to aspartame.

Now do caffeine !

https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food#64a950dee69ae

The FDA says 75 packets of aspartame a day is the acceptable daily level. That would be insane.

It’s fine. Aspartame causes cancer in rats at extremely high rates of ingestion. You would need to drink 100s of Diet Cokes a day.

I’ve read some of the studies and talked about them with some nurses who’ve done the same. The harm is due to the quantity you consume. The study’s found it cancerous after giving it to mice in high doses, like dozens of 2 liters of diet soda each day. Most people who drink a few cans are going to be fine.

We’ll have to see what the new report says and some people might have to adjust the amount they drink it but I doubt it will say any amount is cancerous.

Unfortunately I’ve never tasted anything with Stevia that I like. Weird, weird aftertaste.

Aspartame has an aftertaste but I got used to it after maybe three tries. I’ve never gotten used to Stevia.

Too bad, because in other ways Stevia is superior.

I like fizzy drinks, so lately I’ve been mostly drinking unsweetened, like La Croix or Spindrift.

Great video, thanks for sharing.