lemmy.amxl.com
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year ago

The WHO declared aspartame "possibly" causes cancer. Here’s what that means. | Vox

www.vox.com

external-link
message-square
14
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • worldnews@lemmy.ml
0
external-link

The WHO declared aspartame "possibly" causes cancer. Here’s what that means. | Vox

www.vox.com

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year ago
message-square
14
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • worldnews@lemmy.ml
The WHO declared aspartame “possibly” causes cancer. Here’s what that means.
www.vox.com
external-link
Get ready for an earful about the health risks of Diet Coke, Trident gum, Equal, and other sugar-free items.
alert-triangle
You must log in or register to comment.
  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Mexican coke > regular Coke

    Mexican coke Lite > Diet coke

    Sorry y’all that’s just coke math.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      .

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does it have atomic mass? Then it probably can cause cancer.

    • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Does it interact in any way whatsoever with the electromagnetic spectrum?

      Yeah that’ll give you cancer alright

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aspertame is the most-tested food additive ever. There has never been proven any causal link to cancer, not in the decades anyone has tried, and there still hasn’t— not even in this year-old article.

    • Melkath@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sounds a lot like claims about second hand tobacco smoke.

      Lots of data reviews cherry picking source data to plot a correlation with a large enough population, but no demonstration of causation.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        lmao you can’t be serious. Smoking affects everyone around you

        • Melkath@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So does B.O.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Body odor doesn’t increase the likelihood of cancer for the people around you.

            • Melkath@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Neither does second hand tobacco smoke.

              Again, cite that landmark study that ever proved that.

              Trillions of dollars into a carpet bomb of MTV commercials and data studies.

              Still no solid science that can make tobacco more of a cancer causer than refined sugar.

              Only cherry picked data reviews that claim tenuous correlation.

              • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Let’s trade sources. Here are mine.

                • Secondhand smoking may increase the overall risk of cancer for never smokers, particularly lung and breast cancer, and especially in women.

                • Does secondhand smoke cause cancer? Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 7, 9)

                • Twenty years after secondhand smoke was first classified as a cause of lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers, the evidence supporting causation continues to mount (USDHHS 1986).

                • Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmokers increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent. Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause approximately 53,800 deaths annually in the United States. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home is also a risk factor for asthma in children.

                Edit: I also did the work for you and checked some of the references in those sources. Here’s the 1986 landmark surgeon general report.

                • Melkath@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Every source from the propaganda machine, the US Government. None peer reviewed scholarly research.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And that sounds a lot like a false equivalence based on pure speculation with zero evidence to back it up.

        And there was always a lot of evidence of the damage caused by second-hand smoke that tobacco industries simply paid politicians to ignore. Hell, all you had to do was look at the walls and curtains of a smoker to see the tar and smoke stains. It was clear as day.

        For decades studies from all sorts of institutions, both big and small and independently-funded have failed to find any evidence at all that aspartame is unsafe for human consumption as a food additive.

        • Melkath@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Show me the causation.

          I can’t prove a negative.

          I can go and learn exactly peer reviewed causation between mesothelioma and asbestos.

          “Second hand smoke causes cancer” has no biological evidence. It has mountains of data reviews and a behemoth of propaganda aired daily.

          “there was always a lot of evidence of the damage caused by second-hand smoke”

          Produce the landmark peer reviewed biological study that proved this.

          You can’t. Because it’s War on Drugs, it’s propaganda, and it is an absolute ocean of spurious correlation manuscripts and absolutely no proof.

          You got lung cancer from sucking up burnt dinosaur goo during rush hour, not because a dude had a smoke in your general viscinity.

science@lemmy.world

science@lemmy.world

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !science@lemmy.world

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 334 users / day
  • 1.36K users / week
  • 4.52K users / month
  • 11.7K users / 6 months
  • 1 local subscriber
  • 21.6K subscribers
  • 1.87K Posts
  • 16.9K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • m3t00🌎@lemmy.world
  • Joleee@lemmy.world
  • laverabe@lemmy.world
  • DeadPand@midwest.social
  • laverabe@lemmy.zip
  • BE: 0.19.9
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org