FDA Says Aspartame Is Safe, Disagreeing With WHO's Cancer Link 161
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) disagrees with the World Health Organization's recent assessment that aspartame possibly causes cancer in humans. "Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions," an agency spokesperson said. CNBC reports: The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a WHO body, found a possible link between aspartame and a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma after reviewing three large human studies in the U.S. and Europe. Dr. Mary Schubauer-Berigan, a senior official at IARC, emphasized that the WHO classification of aspartame as a possible carcinogen is based on limited evidence. Schubauer-Berigan acknowledged during a news conference with journalists Wednesday that the studies could contain flaws that skewed the results. She said the classification should be viewed as a call to conduct more research into whether aspartame can cause cancer in humans. "This shouldn't really be taken as a direct statement that indicates that there is a known cancer hazard from consuming aspartame," Schubauer-Berigan said.
The FDA spokesperson said the classification of aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" does not mean the sugar substitute is actually linked to cancer. Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority have also concluded that aspartame is safe at the current permitted levels, the spokesperson said. A separate body of international scientists called the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives said Thursday that the evidence of an association between aspartame and cancer in humans is not convincing. JECFA is an international group made up of scientists from the WHO and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. JECFA makes recommendations about how much of a product people can safely consume. The organization maintained its recommendation that it is safe for a person to consume 40 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight daily during their lifetime. An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department told the WHO in an August 2022 letter that JECFA is better suited to provide public health recommendations about the safety of aspartame in food. This is because JECFA reviews all available data, both public and private proprietary information, whereas the IARC only looks at public data. "Thus, an IARC review of aspartame, by comparison, would be incomplete and its conclusion could be confusing to consumers," Mara Burr, who heads the HHS office of multilateral relations, wrote in the letter. The FDA has a slightly higher recommendation than JECFA and says it is safe for a person to consume 50 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight daily during their lifetime. A person who weighs 132 pounds would have to consume 75 packets of aspartame per day to reach this limit.
The FDA spokesperson said the classification of aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" does not mean the sugar substitute is actually linked to cancer. Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority have also concluded that aspartame is safe at the current permitted levels, the spokesperson said. A separate body of international scientists called the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives said Thursday that the evidence of an association between aspartame and cancer in humans is not convincing. JECFA is an international group made up of scientists from the WHO and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. JECFA makes recommendations about how much of a product people can safely consume. The organization maintained its recommendation that it is safe for a person to consume 40 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight daily during their lifetime. An adult who weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, would have to drink more than nine to 14 cans of aspartame-containing soda daily to exceed the limit and potentially face health risks.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department told the WHO in an August 2022 letter that JECFA is better suited to provide public health recommendations about the safety of aspartame in food. This is because JECFA reviews all available data, both public and private proprietary information, whereas the IARC only looks at public data. "Thus, an IARC review of aspartame, by comparison, would be incomplete and its conclusion could be confusing to consumers," Mara Burr, who heads the HHS office of multilateral relations, wrote in the letter. The FDA has a slightly higher recommendation than JECFA and says it is safe for a person to consume 50 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight daily during their lifetime. A person who weighs 132 pounds would have to consume 75 packets of aspartame per day to reach this limit.
Huh (Score:3, Funny)
The Food and Drug Administration disagrees with WHO?
Re:Huh (Score:5, Funny)
The Food and Drug Administration disagrees with WHO?
I don't know (third base.)
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you not trust the experts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Huh (Score:2)
"trust/distrust" shouldn't be in the vocabulary of any practicing scientist; only "verified/unverified" and "plausible/implausible."
Expert opinion is the lowest form of evidence, as they say.
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks the lady doth protest a wee bit too much.
At the Speed of Science (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry but the WHO is fighting cancer at the Speed of Science. Try to keep up. FDA questioning science is a bad look. oof yikes.
Re: (Score:2)
The WHO's study is silly (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need to drink 12 cans a day to hit their numbers.
Try doing that with sugared soda and see what it does to your cancer risk.
Or, more likely, your risk of diabetes -- and ability to sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to consume the beverage very carefully, since drinking sugary drinks can cause your blood sugar levels to spike and then crash wildly. It would require perfect timing. A drip-feed mechanism (soda hat?) would be about the only way, since relying on a human to carefully sip from cans that often would uh probably not work out.
Also your gut still needs solids unless you want it to lock up in perma-constipation mode. You would need dietary fibre supplements, aminos, and vitamin/mineral suppleme
Re: The WHO's study is silly (Score:2)
So if you use an interpreted language, you go on a diet?
Re: (Score:2)
A can of pop, it seems, contains about 40 grams of sugar, 12 cans will give you 480 grams of sugar. This sugar contains 1700 Cals of energy, which is close to the daily need of a grown man. So, I wander, if it is bad for person to get all his/her calories from pure sugar on a constant basis instead? Do we have a study to vet this alternative? Huh?
The daily recommended sugar intake for a grown man is 36 grams: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] While you can satisfy your daily caloric intake (2500 calories for a grown man and 2000 calories for a grown woman) with pure sugar it is not recommended by any sane nutritionist or medical professional.
Re: The WHO's study is silly (Score:2)
In all these cancer scare studies we forget that there is no way to reduce the risk completely. Instead, we have to look for the "safest" way to do something.
Yes, there is: drink water instead. Bur of course, this means nobody can charge you for soda anymore if there's no "safe" way to make it not taste like shit.
Which is pretty much the point: sugar was everybody else's bad boy, and as long as "alternatives" were available, it even served to promoted "light-this" amd "zero-that".
But now? What should be the talking point? "Don't buy any, even the alternatives have their way of risking your health"?
It's obvious that the food industry won't like this.
I don't know
Re: (Score:2)
However, if somebody likes sweet stuff, it is a real issue for the quality of life to stop eating / drinking it.
They don't have to stop drinking or eating it. They can still have soda. Just having 3-4 liters a day as a go-to thirst stiller isn't it.
We like sweet for some reason, so avoiding it may have a long term negative effect, on the body, on the mental health.
The reason we like it is that it's rapid, easy to digest energy. It's also mostly "food for the brain", which is why, for instance, (human) mother milk has a lot of carbohydrates instead of proteins, like cow milk has, for instance.
But our taste buds were intended to recognize sweet fruits -- apples, bananas, cherries, whatervers... and other naturally occurring sugars, of
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't consider any kind of sugar pop as alternative to the aspartame based drinks, they are extremely bad for your health. There's nothing wrong with just drinking water, tea or coffee instead. Or beer if you really want those calories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The WHO's study is silly (Score:2)
Re: The WHO's study is silly (Score:2)
An average American drinks 4 cans of this crap a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The WHO's study is silly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad you recognised the problem and managed to get off it. Best wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
You jest but I can find studies that show just about anything causes cancer.
eg. Potatoes.
(Ah, but potatoes aren't "chemicals" are they...?)
Re: The WHO's study is silly (Score:3)
Being alive has been proven to cause cancer in rats
Re: (Score:3)
No, research causes cancer in rats. Once you include both experimental and control groups, lab rats have higher cancer rates than the control group.
It's science(tm)!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The WHO's study is silly (Score:5, Interesting)
"Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time."
George Carlin, 1977
I like Gerorge Carlin but he was making fun of facts there (the cancer part, not the saliva swallowing). Archaeological data suggests that cancer is about four times more common today than it was during the Middle Ages for example: https://acsjournals.onlinelibr... [wiley.com]. There is something, or more likely a large number of things, about the way modern people live that has made cancer rates explode. I have witnessed several people die of cancer. It's not a joke. Anything you can do to spare your family from having to watch you being eaten alive from the inside (because that's what it seemed to me that cancer literally does while I watched those people die) is time well spent.
Cars (Score:3)
Don't forget cigarettes too. Vaping it is probably better but it's still not good for you.
Also one other thing, people live longer and are more likely to develop cancers. We have a whole bunch of surgeries and medicines that keep you from dying of heart failure.
But that said the Ma
Re: (Score:2)
We also eat a ton of processed food and don't get nearly enough exercise.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, we have all this medicine that can save you from heart attack and stroke (or early intervention to prevent them). But those are the two things most likely to take you out quickly. We are also pretty good at treating or preventing a lot of the infectious diseases that used to be big killers. Something is going to get you eventually, so what's left? Cancer or dementia most likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn I wish I had mod points right now. Great post CaptQuark!
Re: (Score:2)
The Food and Drug Administration disagrees with WHO?
WHO-da-thunk it?
Re: (Score:3)
WHO's statement was based on analysis of what even they admit is *very* sketchy data from animal studies indicating a possible correlation between aspartame and an increased risk of cancer and only then at ridiculously high levels of consumption that you'd really struggle to meet, so they've given it the lowest possible risk rating and suggested further studies and do no recommend that
See prior story (Score:3)
A commenter thoroughly explained this in the prior story. TFS kinda disrespects that.
TL;DR it's in the same class as driving a car.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR it's in the same class as driving a car.
Which is an insanely risky thing which kills many people. The difference is I don't need to consume aspartame to get to work.
Re: (Score:2)
If aspartame is *that* dangerous, we'd be well-advised to avoid it. Additionally, the WHO published findings that low calorie sweeteners are not an effective strategy for people who are trying to lose we
Obesity (Score:5, Informative)
Obesity is riskier, and higher probability of not just cancer but all kinds of chronic-level shit. Have you ever seen an obese person in their 90s, let alone 100s? Which you might think is fine "live a little" etc. but then the problem is not just reduced life expectancy but morbidity .. meaning you wont just drop dead but instead have some chronic ailments etc. Better to endure the pain of skipping the carbs than have to pay back the loan of suffering X times over.
White supremacy (Score:4, Funny)
Obesity is riskier, and higher probability of not just cancer but all kinds of chronic-level shit. Have you ever seen an obese person in their 90s, let alone 100s? Which you might think is fine "live a little" etc. but then the problem is not just reduced life expectancy but morbidity .. meaning you wont just drop dead but instead have some chronic ailments etc. Better to endure the pain of skipping the carbs than have to pay back the loan of suffering X times over.
Yea, but being fit is the same as white supremacy [msnbc.com].
You wouldn't want to be a white supremacist now, would you?
Re: White supremacy (Score:2)
MSNBC's article is beyond stupid (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you wanna get a sense for how the alt-right works you need to steer clear of MSNBC. They're not exactly hard hitting journalism. You're better off with YouTubers like Innuendo Studios "The alt-right playbook" series or Thought Slime's stuff on fascists. Some More News is good too.
Re: MSNBC's article is beyond stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: MSNBC's article is beyond stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
So it's the critical race theory approach?
Don't ask if something is racist, instead ask how it's racist - everything is!
Re: MSNBC's article is beyond stupid (Score:2)
That's clearly not what I said.
Re: MSNBC's article is beyond stupid (Score:3, Informative)
That is NOT happening in Berlin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The only question is if you're purposefully misrepresenting the article or accidentally.
I'm guessing it's purposeful, because you'd have to be near illiterate to make that mistake. That means you're lying. If you have to lie to make your point, you've lost the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obesity is riskier
This isn't an either or question, and alternatives to aspartame exist even if you do subscribe to it being an "obesity solution".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obesity causes liver disease. Liver disease causes liver cancer. Obesity also causes use of artificial sweeteners. Hence, artificial sweeteners are linked with liver cancer.
The signal would be stronger if true (Score:2)
Given how many people have been ingesting aspartame and the length of time that most people ingest aspartame, if there was a meaningful cancer risk the signal for it would be really high. The WHO found weak signals in a few studies. At that point who cares.
Re:The signal would be stronger if true (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be true, I suppose. The reason we don't see a connection is that the WHO's guidelines suggest consuming less than 30 cans of diet soda per day, which is about 500 packets-worth of Equal. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/13... [cnn.com]. Who could possibly consume that much? If we study people who DO consume this much aspartame, I'll bet we WILL find significant health problems.
Re: (Score:2)
If we study people who DO consume this much aspartame, I'll bet we WILL find significant health problems.
And they probably won't be from the Aspartame.
The WHO's study specifically says they didn't control for any lifestyle factors. People who consume dangerous levels of Aspartame probably do all sorts of other bad things, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how many people have been ingesting aspartame and the length of time that most people ingest aspartame, if there was a meaningful cancer risk the signal for it would be really high.
The signal that we are doing something to dramatically increase cancer rates in society IS really high. Cancer rates are through the roof compared to the past. The question is what are those activities we do or things we consume, and for that we need targeted studies to isolate the sources.
Studies have been done. They have almost universally shown aspartame is associated with an increase in cancer: https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org] While studies which show *LIMITED* intake do not associate with a cancer inc
Re: (Score:2)
Other things that IARC classifies as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and thus, according to you, "there is no doubt" they cause cancer: traditional Asian pickled vegetables, progestins and progestogen-only contraceptives, extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields, RF electromagnetic fields, carbon black, one specific kind of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (but not other nanotubes), caffeic acid (found in all plants), magenta, and Aloe vera.
Things that are more certain to cause cancer include sunlight, carpent
Re:The signal would be stronger if true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Same with monosodfium glutamate, aka. Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
fffffff
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.uchealth.com/en/me... [uchealth.com]
Re:The signal would be stronger if true (Score:4, Interesting)
Agree on the cancer risk. But Aspartame does cause some people headaches and it is hard on some people's kidneys. In fact, I personally know someone who drank 4 liters of aspartame diet soda in one day during a software push and it put him in the hospital.
Yep, some people can have reactions to aspartame but there's also people who can die from eating peanuts. What if your friend had never eaten a peanut before and decided to try them during that crunch?
If we go down that path then there won't be any food left.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the illustrious "they". I take it this would be the sinister worldwide conspiracy hatched by scientists who have suspiciously and deviously failed to be funded by the companies whose products they're researching.
First they came for the cigarette ads in children's cartoon shows, then mildly suggested that eating a stick of butter with every meal is probably a bad idea. Now they admit the existence of science that a nutritionally-devoid food additive might
Re: (Score:2)
Spend $100 and find out for yourself what your gas stove does to indoor air quality.
Go! (Score:2, Funny)
Medicine nerd fight!
Medicine nerd fight!
Medicine nerd fight!
Not to put too fine a point on it... (Score:2)
Doctors told my father he had six months to live.
Every six months. For 20 years.
Doctors can't agree on chicken eggs. Are they good? Are they bad? Some? Bunches? None?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but give it up, live how you want. You won't get out of life alive anyway. 90 years is a long, long time to be unhappy. 70, having fun, pinching bottoms, quaffing a beverage, and or inhaling may cost you that time at the end, but it is an individual choice if it's worth it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "doctors say" articles are basically "doctors released some numbers that will get abused and amplified to death by journalists to attract more eyes"
Re: (Score:2)
Well according to most (all?) serious religions if you live a life of debauchery you'll have to pay for all the fun eventually. Either by going to hell or by coming back as a slave or roach or something in the next life.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like, "Can I be reborn in a religion-free planet?", Alex, for $400.
Alex: Oooooo....no, that option was put up there by mistake, sorry. We cannot have a lot religious nutjobs running around with no one but themselves to make miserable. By the time they get here to the Pearly Gates, St. Pete has no option but send them off to limbo; Beelzebub stopped accepting them years ago. They are simple too insufferable to allow in either Heaven or Hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Just have the tax payers cover your medical bills.
AKA Socialized medicine.
All good.
Considering that countries with socialized medicine have longer lives, have better quality of life, and fewer costs (tax + health in the US, vs. just tax) yes. Yes, it is good.
Sure wish half the people in this country would stop being fooled that our current way of health is better.
Because it's provably not.
Saccharin was banned too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do have the impression the sugar lobby is probably the closest thing to what conspiracy theorists say about the system and government etc..
Except they're all under the sugar lobby's grasp
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, this time you need to consume an insane amount of aspartame to (probably) raise your cancer risk a tiny bit. So they're probably both correct...sort of.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
why does there exist fuckers that you are gleefully doing an argument to authority for
Of course (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As if cancer is the only reason not to smoke cigarettes.
And hey, diesel isnt gasoline so it wont harm your gasoline engine, right?
It still tastes terrible (Score:3)
I donâ(TM)t care what the suggested maximum due is, I still find drinks with aspartame taste bad. Iâ(TM)d rather drink less soda drinks, but keep the real sugar in them.
Re: (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t care what the suggested maximum due is, I still find drinks with aspartame taste bad. Iâ(TM)d rather drink less soda drinks, but keep the real sugar in them.
Of course, but you soon get used to it.
You think anybody's first beer tasted good?
Re: (Score:2)
No. You don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly! that shit tastes terrible. the real issue is the sugar lobby has fucked up the US for the sake of profit. the country would be better off if we consumed 1/5th the sugar.
Is this like how MSG is bad for you? (Score:2)
It's not like they actually disagree (Score:2)
Essentially they are saying the same: There is no link between Aspartame and Cancer.
Essentially it's on the "Group 2B" list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I really don't understand the WHO here (Score:3)
I really don't understand the WHO here. We're not talking about saccharin or cyclamate, we're talking about aspartame! Its formula is rather straightforward: a methyl ester of an aspartate-phenylalanine dipeptide. In acid medium (for example, human stomach) it is hydrolyized to methanol and the two individual aminoacids.
And it has some good drawbacks. It's poison to those with phenylketonuria. And, it's hydrolyzed to methanol, which again is incredibly toxic. So it would be toxic, especially in high quantities... but carcinogenic? Then we would stop eating proteins, because phenylalanine and aspartate are carcinogenic? Doesn't really make any sense to me.
Anyone who claims that aspartame is linked to cancer should offer at least a plausuble explanation of its alleged carcinogenicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Also fruit, so much methanol.
Secret science? (Score:2)
The WHO may be wrong or right, but if their data is public then they are doing science, because they can be argued with. The FDA on the other hand seem to be saying that they know better due to 'private' i.e. secret data. It's possible the FDA is correct, but it's still not science.
Re: (Score:3)
We know that both dish out more bad science than is expected through random chance alone.
The entire fake sugar industry isnt good. The whole premise is suspect.
Would you expect no consequences if you regularly tricked your body into thinking that you drank water when you didnt?
Would you expect no consequences if you regularly tricked your body into thinking that you ate food when you didnt?
Would you expect no consequences if you
FDA isn't disagreeing (Score:2)
The WHO is exclusively listing if something can cause cancer or not. The FDA is saying that aspartame does not cause cancer *below the recommended daily intake value*. The science linking aspartame to cancer is quite clear, what is an open question is the dose rate and many studies do agree (and some don't) that the FDA recommended maximum daily intake is safe... and also quite hard to reach.
These are not the same discussions. They are talking past each other, or more likely some brain dead media organisati
WHO and their exaggerated cancer links (Score:2)
They use the P>0.05 significance test. This means one in 20 tests are positive just by chance. Then they look at 20 cancer types separately, and voila: on average one of them is positive just by chance! Although the statistics for the total cancer rate gives no positive result.
https://xkcd.com/882/ [xkcd.com]
And also, they only look at the pro
Re: (Score:2)
it's about stuff people eat and drink. Best to err on the safe side. It's up to the manufacturer and seller to prove a substance is safe.
Re: WHO and their exaggerated cancer links (Score:2)
FDA Pete Townsend (Score:2)
FDA is easily mislead (Score:2)
Brought to you by the Coca-Cola company (Score:3)
This completely unbiased American study is brought to you by our platinum sponsor, the Coca-Cola company.
Never in the news for anything good. (Score:2)
If you care about your weight, just use real sugar products, use less or abstain, and exercise more.
Are you misunderstanding this on purpose? (Score:3)
"The FDA spokesperson said the classification of aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" does not mean the sugar substitute is actually linked to cancer."
That's in agreement with the WHO statement. Why are you framing this as a disagreement?
"the WHO classification of aspartame as a possible carcinogen is based on limited evidence..."
Yeah, that's why it's a class 2b substance, along with coffee, pickled vegetables, and celphones, instead of a class 2a substance. Does CNBC intentionally misread things, not even bothering to read the wikipedia page? Do YOU not do any reading before appending your headlines to these?
FDA Won't Even List Lists Stevia as Sweetner (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Follow the money (Score:2)
WHO - is it influenced by big lobby groups?
You decide - can you trust an organisation that is influenced by corporate giants whose primary concern is to turn an annual profit for their shareholder?
Re: Of course they did (Score:3)