This should be big - and about time. Studies have known about this for 40 years, and it’s known in some circles that aspartame is quite bad for your health.

Wonder what coke - and many other companies that use it - are going to do.

  • Don Corleone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t freak out (yet) people…

    They put aspartame in the “possibly carcinogenic” category which is their least certain one. Also in this category we have… Radio waves (sigh)… Yeah right…

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Radio waves are known to be harmful, that’s why the FCC maintains Maximum Permissible Exposure limits and every technician HAM has to learn about safe distance from a transmission source in relation to power and frequency. It is not a stretch that such RF exposure could potentially have carcinogenic properties, but that needs context, the likelihood of a cell phone is pretty much nil.

      • we_were_never_here@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is not a stretch that such RF exposure could potentially have carcinogenic properties, but that needs context, the likelihood of a cell phone is pretty much nil.

        That’s not how non-ionizing radiation works. The MPE exposure limits are because you can be effectively cooked, not because you’ll get cancer. You need much more energy to do that, like UV light, X or gamma rays.

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

        But this line of logic ultimately also ends at “how much aspartame do you need to ingest before it’s bad for you?” A lot of these things end in “you need to consume an unreasonable amount for it to affect you negatively”.

        • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

          If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

          But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

          I’m an MD and don’t touch the stuff.

        • YellowtoOrange@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          If 100mg causes cancer in 80% of test cases in one year, then it will be very difficult to study how 1mg will affect a group of people, as at lower doses, interactions may become more important.

          If you have a shit diet, don’t exercise, then a smaller dose of aspartame may be more potent- the effect may be additive. It would be too difficult to exclude confounding factors in such a study.

          But luckily no one has the trio of a shit diet, drinks soda and doesn’t exercise :/

          I’m an MD and don’t touch the stuff.