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. 
did you even read the article, they're correct
there is 100% a difference between hazards and risks, aspartame is a hazard in that if you drink multiple twelve packs of diet soda a day it can give you cancer, it is not a risk in that the average person will not be drinking multiple twelve packs of soda in a single day. hence why it's important to label it as a hazard (guys don't drink 17+ diet coke cans a day), but not important for it to be labeled as a risk (general public should not drink this at all) without additional research that puts it in the risk category
which is why food regulatory bodies including the one in China allows aspartame in food products
which is why food regulatory bodies including the one in China allows aspartame in food products
You found the cheat code to make hexbear users think something is okay!
But yeah this article is not dunk worthy. It rightly explains the difference and use cases of different health org classifications
Well now you're on to "risk management" or managing a hazard .
Taking it in on itself is not a 1:1 cancer, but over time and with individual known and unknown factors will increase your risk to cancer and neurological issues. I just know if I have more than 1 serving it gives me migraines which is inconsistant with industry you need to bath in it every day all day for it to negatively effect you.
I would trust the WHO over China's food safety.
Edit: Hexbear - now powered by Monsanto.
I just know if I have more than 1 serving it gives me migraines
Might want to blind test this if you haven't already. See: MSG panic
I have. Over years. The factor is always aspartame. I have no other explanation. Within an hour , not 24 or 48 like some studies say, I'll get headaches and I've learned to just look out for it and avoid it. I got no other food allergies or sensitivities. I'm not a womam going through hormonal changes or being drunk or have a history of migranes or headaches as some studies suggest. It doesn't matter the weather, the food, any other factor. It's aspartame.
Blind tests specifically? Take, e.g., soda and diet soda, decant into identical containers with hidden labels, drink one, and log any effects before you check what it was. The brain is powerful. Some people experience real headaches because they think that WiFi or other RF gives them headaches. But they won't get a headache from radio waves they don't know about.
I don't intend this in a mean way. If you do find out that it's something else you could get relief from said migraines. Like the MSG folks who are probably just not drinking enough water when they go out to dinner, or are nervous about Asians or something. I once took placebo and a low dose of MDMA in a blind study and got them backwards. I was embarrassed for some reason but our brains really do construct much of what we perceive as raw sensory input.
I don't have these headaches unless it's aspartame and I really had no real opinion on the whole thing until after years of repeated "why am I getting headaches" shortly after and I revaluate what I've had and it's always triggered around aspartame. It isn't psychosomatic. I don't have a problem with regular migranes or headaches. When I do get headaches I can usually attribute them to dehydration, or stress, or some other obvious issue.
I can have suculouse with no problem. Stevia no problem. Monk fruit no problem with the added bonus of having more lucid dreams. High fructose corn syrup but I feel a bit bloated after so I try to stay away from that - but no headaches. It's always aspartame if I have more than 1 serving. So there's something there.
Why am I being gaslighted so damned hard on this forum?
Look I'm not trying to gaslight you. It's totally possible that aspartame affects you in a unique way. Maybe the headache thing is real and you are a hyper-responder. Maybe most people don't experience headaches because they're convinced it's safe. All I have to say is that you can't rule out psychosomatic effects without blind testing, and I personally don't believe untested anecdotes like yours because of my own experience with drugs and from growing up in the tail end of the MSG panic. Have a nice day, take the last word if you want.
even if you do get a headache from aspartame, so what? it says nothing about the general safety of the stuff
I just know if I have more than 1 serving it gives me migraines which is inconsistant with industry you need to bath in it every day all day for it to negatively effect you.
Anecdotes aside, just because people can have sensitivities, intolerances, or allergies to certain substances does not mean it's harmful to the average person in anything but an unrealistic dosage, nor is it treated as such—peanuts are noticably absent from lists of deadliest poisons despite the effects of anaphylactic shock.
When i laugh i pass out, so we're on to risk management every time i come on this site
Other things of equal carcinogenic hazard level per the WHO or IARC:
living in an area with cell phone, AM or FM radio reception
Being near wood that hasn't been sealed, stained, or lacquered.
Smelling a fart
Having ferns growing within 20 miles of you (they are everywhere except deserts and antarctica)
Some things that are considerably more carcinogenic
Living in the same building as a cat
Living in a house that once had lead paint on the walls, but which has been covered up
Being within 20 meters of leather
Consumption of meat or animal products
Hormone replacement therapy
Consumption of Caffeine
Consumption of Alcohol
Exposure to sunlight (even through windows)
Insufficient exposure to sunlight
Wood sealants, stains, and lacquers
Consumption of Tap Water
Consumption of Bottled Water
Consumption of Filtered Water
Being near fire or smoke
Consumption of hot beverages
Outdoor Air Pollution
Consumption of Fried Foods
Exposure to emissions from frying or fried foods
Going to a barber shop or hair salon, even once.
Insufficient exposure to sunlight
Wood sealants, stains, and lacquers
Consumption of Tap Water
Consumption of Bottled Water
Consumption of Filtered Water
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
wood sealants, stains, and lacquers
Actual answer: use food-grade wood oils like walnut oil, tung oil (not a blend), or raw linseed oil. Not boiled linseed oil, it's not food safe and spontaneously combusts. Wood dust is in 1, so just wear a respirator or even a mask when doing sanding or other woodworking. Oils were listed in order of my recommendation from easiest to find and work with to least easy.
Consumption of water
All three of these options (and hot beverages, meaning any time water is at or above 65c/147f) are in 2a which is "probably carcinogenic." So, soup or even just heated up water is in the same class along with coffee, mate, or tea. Raw water isn't even rated because that shit'll kill you dead, honey. Get a Reverse Osmosis filter, don't run hot water through it, and be cognizant of the pipes between your filter system and your non-leaded glass.
Insufficient exposure to sunlight
Just go outside for a little bit when you can. Literally like 10 minutes is enough.
if we're going by anecdotes then i gotta say every time i got the covid booster i shit out some crazy diarrhea
I would trust the WHO over China's food safety.
i don't know why, because the WHO themselves say you shouldn't use them as a gauge of food safety levels
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.
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.
Someone posted about this several days ago but again, there's an absolute fuck ton of chemicals that are listed in the "possibly carcinogenic" classification. Some of my favorites are gingko leaf extract, aloe vera and caffeic acid, which is a prominent chemical in coffee and herbs from the mint family.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2B
It is a carcinogenic, but in the same way like things such as aloes, food dyes and processed meat are carcinogenic. So far down the line that's it's not really worth worrying about, it's still much healthier than added sugar.
Well i am reacting to my experience with it and new developments.
Don't know how much big artificial sweetener is
but apparently this hit someone's nerve to bring all the defenders to the yard. After all the decades of intense lobbying, bribery, and shady legal and buisness practices to ram it through approvals.As for the China does it - China’s Sweetener Makers Advance on WHO Aspartame Speculation
China’s sweetener producers gained after a report said the World Health Organization is set to decide on the safety of aspartame, a manufactured sugar used in popular diet drinks, with an analyst saying substitute manufacturers may profit.
Shares in Baolingbao Biology Co. and Shandong Sanyuan Biotechnology Co., which make natural sweetener erythritol jumped by at least 10% each on Friday. Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., a producer of additives including sucralose gained 9.8%, while Shandong Kaisheng New Materials Co., which uses a raw material used in its production, advanced 15%.
Someone's apple cart is definitely getting a reactionary response in the market.
oh, i'm all for replacing aspartame with sucralose, the superior sweetener that doesn't leave an aftertaste akin to licking lightbulbs. but we got two scare-mongering pieces of news regarding artificial sweeteners in a row, and the news that popped up didn't cover it with the proper nuance and could be easily interpreted as "sugar better", so I strongly suspect sugar lobbying is at play here (non-sugar sweeteners have gained incredible ground over sugar itself on processed food and especially beverages), and I'm surpised someone who is so suspicious about science communication isn't picking up this obvious a scent.
You know when a food additive is bad when they start removing it voluntarily. A lot of sodas switched to sucralose years ago. Companies don't completely change their formula for fun. And I don't think consumer pressure drove them to do it either. At some point they found out that the shit was bad and they could be sued if they kept using it. So they got ahead of it. They don't want to be tobacco'd.
Same thing with all the uncured luncheon meat that started years go. All those extra curing additives causes cancer too.
Sucralose will probably have its day too. I noticed a huge spike in stevia and monk fruit being pushed ahead of sucralose. And splenda dove deep into those alternate sweetners. They could probably drop sucralose and be fine.
idk, If I was a betting man, I'd put money on the new stuff being cheaper before I'd believe they're concerned about their consumers or measly lawsuits.
Some new sweeteners are orders of magnitude (like 1000x or more) sweeter than aspartame, and therefore much cheaper because a lot less is needed. I'm a chemist in the flavors industry.
John Brown, will stevia kill me or can I continue drinking my Donald Duck orange cream soda?
Yes but sometimes they remove things due to bad consumer perception like MSG or gluten.
Ugh, I hate sucralose. That stuff gave me a gnarly allergic reaction/inflammation and I got sent to the hospital twice because of it (I didn't know what was causing it so oops, poisoned myself twice)
i remember reading some story about some guy with a snacky sweet tooth buying a big pack of sugar free gummy bears to eat on a plane ride. they were sweetened with sorbitol. anyway, the guy absentmindedly eats a shitload of them and then gets outrageous bubble gut, before absolutely wrecking the airplane toilet midflight. like apparently it was loud as hell and unrelenting.
he discovered later sorbitol, while a sweetener, is also used as a laxative.
this was featured in dr house, one of the clinic patients had persistent diarrhea and house was like "how much gum are you chewing per day lmao"
30 years ago, there was a lot of hay made about "Olestra" (an indigestible fat substitute) and the FDA made products with it have a warning label about "loose stools", even though someone had to go absolutely buck wild to experience it. there was other stuff going on with olestra, but the association in consumers' minds of snackies and sloppy dookies killed the idea. i guess they learned their lesson, because it seems like sugar substitutes are far worse at causing blowouts than olestra was, but they are here to stay. i guess the solution was to make it so the FDA can't tell anyone what to do, re: labeling.
Feel free to avoid it but also consider these then. If it moves up to 2A then that would be big deal.
my diabetic ass will continue to drink all the aspartame and sucralose i want & ignoring all the shouting
You should be avoiding aspartame anyways, it's a neural exciter in the brain, acts as a nuero transmitter that flips stuff on. It's terrible for my tinnitus, causing an immediate increase upon consumption, which is a disorder caused by already overcited nuerons.
I stick to sucralose or stevia for soda, or for a sweetener, L-Glycine amino acid.
you caught me
