Verge does PR for carcinogenic aspartame.
Verge does PR for carcinogenic aspartame.
Aspartame being a possible carcinogen doesn’t mean what you think.
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. 
Permanently Deleted
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 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.
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"
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.
Aspartame discourse is reactionary and you cannot make me care about it
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.
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
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.
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
the cheat code
you caught me