It's not a "risk" it's a "hazard assement".
It's not a food safety agency it's just the World Health Organization's cancer research arm.
This certainly doesn't stir up mistrust. 
It's not a "risk" it's a "hazard assement".
It's not a food safety agency it's just the World Health Organization's cancer research arm.
This certainly doesn't stir up mistrust.
Speaking as a chemist with over a decade of experience in the flavor and fragrance industry:
In the grand scheme of shit that the average first world consumer puts in their body on a daily basis, aspartame is so far down the list that it's not even worth thinking about. Processed sugar is one of the worst things and artifical sweeteners, even when consumed in absurd amounts like 3+ liters of soda per day, are much less unhealthy than the equivalent amount of sugared alternative.
Aspartame is being phased out because much more stronger (and therefore cheaper per unit) artificial sweeteners are still being developed. It's one of the most researched food additives in existence, second only to maybe MSG, which is also about as safe as you can get. You should be much more worried about pesticides and other agricultural residues, look up "chlorpyrifos" if you want something to really be concerned about.
as a dumb guy, i always assumed cane sugar was the "healthiest" possible sweetener to see on a list of ingredients. Is that one also processed?
It's not about processing, it's about the fact that pure sugar is absolute garbage to consume
Pretty much all simple sugars are straight up terrible for you. The exception would be at low levels like you'd find naturally in fruit (but even then, don't eat too much fruit).
The issue is less the kind of sugar added to processed food, it's more about quantity.
deleted by creator
People mention also the sweetener lobby but do not mention the sugar lobby which is also massive and put out a lot of propaganda just like the sweetener lobby.