Hacker News Reader

The WHO does have a tendency to lean overly cautious.

But you have to remember that the FDA is not working for YOUR best interest either. When the FDA says that something is “safe”, what it actually means is “the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a lifetime”. So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA.

The WHO isn’t under the same lobbying or economic pressures, and approach their statements from entirely different perspectives than the FDA.

Even if true, isn't economic impact just a proxy for human harm since the more working and healthy humans the better?

The FDA has a history of being cautious as well. Perhaps even overly cautious.

> So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA.

I would love to see some kind of foundation for this, to explain where your beliefs about FDA processes are coming from.

Yes, because there's nothing wrong with anything they've greenlit before, like high fructose corn syrup.

It's sugar. They so far haven't been in the business of forcing food to be healthier, to my knowledge, and corn syrup isn't poison.

HFCS is very similar to sugar, from a diet and health perspective. The FDA’s mandate is food safety, not population health.

I mean, it's hard to even know where to grapple with such a polemic statement. But you mean to say that the FDA's mission is to ignore retirees? Retirees being the the most powerful voting block in the country, the top source of campaign contributions, and top recipient of government funds.

Even if I was conspiratorial minded, I would assume the conspiracy works the other way.

That's not what he means. He's referring to the FDA officials retiring, and thus no longer being responsible for any of their decisions on safety anymore, since they're at home relaxing if anything bad happens down the road.

A plain textual reading of the comment doesn't suggest that at all.

Maybe you're referring to a different thread?

Wouldn’t they be consuming FDA approved foods and drugs by people as unscrupulous and heartless as them though in this scenario?

Yeesh, these folk are people, I sincerely doubt “nothing bad’ll happen until I’m retired” is their general calculus.

Not that I don’t disagree with the idea of being skeptical about agency motivations and transparency, but this seems like a literal conspiracy theory.

There are all kinds of things that cause or are linked cancer that pretty much have to be legal. Can the government entirely ban motor vehicles or delivery trucks? Would you have the government ban ice cream because obesity causes cancer?

Government agencies like the FDA have to deal with the complexities of the real world. Risk of death is involved with daily life, so they are often tasked with the analysis of risk.

The layperson doesn’t really like to hear that they’re just a number in a statistics database but it’s true.

40% of people get cancer in their lifetime. So if you have a chemical that increases cancer risk by an insignificant enough percentage, there’s a pretty understandable debate on whether banning something like that is an overreach or not. What are the benefits of the chemicals? What are the risks?

Actually banning fossil fuel cars from dense city centers has been proven to be healthier for the people living there. So yeah would be great if they could ban them everywhere.

I agree, but there's a reason that I specifically didn't add those qualifiers. I was talking about a complete ban on vehicles – delivery trucks, school buses, semi trucks, cars in rural areas, etc. They all have negative externalities and verifiably kill people, but they provide obvious benefits that we rely on.

The FDA is there to evaluate risks and decide when benefits outweigh risks.

> The WHO does have a tendency to lean overly cautious

Not always. It took them far too long to acknowledge COVID-19 could be transmitted through the air.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7

That tells you about how much you should listen to their opinions on the causation of cancer, eh?

I mostly agree. Both agencies have their flaws (what doesn't?) but on the whole, I trust WHO more than the FDA.

Which isn't to say I'll always side with WHO over FDA when they disagree, of course.

> “the economic impacts of this are probably negligible in a lifetime”

I mean, how else would you define "safe"? I have trouble imagining something both unsafe and has no ecconomic impact.

> So if aspartame causes cancer after your career is over, then it’s safe according to the FDA.

That is a big claim. It fits my priors. But is there any evidence for it?

From what I've seen, it appears that plastics/endocrine disruptors are evidence of this. BPA being a previous example [1], with most other plastics being a current example [2], including the "BPA free" replacements like BPS.

[1] https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/nrdc-fda-reach-settlemen...

[2] https://sdg.iisd.org/news/household-plastic-products-disrupt...

> Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history

You could almost say that it's the Lance Armstrong of food additives.

That's hilarious.

This is genuinely hilarious. Well done.

Ooof, that's a lot of shade to throw on aspartame.

A lot of your criticism seems to be playing the man rather than the ball.

The WHO said a person weighing 70kg would need to consume more than between nine and 14 cans of diet soft drink per day to exceed the daily guideline. So basically the FDA and WHO are in agreement, but the WHO uses more cautious language.

Sure, but as much as the news is going to pick up this story and blow it out of proportion, I think people should kind of know they are being played with here.

WHO can't be held responsible for headlines put out by newspapers.

WHO declared aspartame possibly carcinogenic, putting it in the same class as mobile phone usage That means there is some limited evidence pointing in that direction, but that further studies are needed to confirm this. I don't think this statement is incorrect. In the end is all about the daily dosis, and the possibly increase in cancer (is it 0.005% or 5%).

If you need to drink 40 cans to increase your cancer risk by 0.005%, it would be irrelevant for most people.

Yup, and yet the thousands who will read the CNN article (ok let’s be serious, they just skim the headline) about the WHO version will “tsk tsk” at me and say “You know that stuff gives you cancer,” while ingesting dozens of supplements that haven’t even been tested for safety because they’re unregulated.

The WHO seems to be following the science, the FDA seems to be following cough something else.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8227014/

Check the table near the end:

- Genotoxicity

- Neurodegneration

- Neurotransmission disruption

- Hormone disruption (including early menstruation in girls < 10yrs old)

No... It's not safe.

This is the part that is so utterly maddening.

People will sit and argue the carcinogenic potential and completely ignore they're discussing poison. As if cancer is the only factor that could be of concern.

Notice your comment is down at the far end of the pile, while above psuedointellectuals fiegn insight into FDA & WHO motivations.

Endocrine & hormone disrupting, toxic compounds, but wait for it, hasn't been studied yet -> "there's no evidence" of harmful effect -> food safe

EU already banned a whole host of additives the US public gladly gorges on because we want red drank

The only alternative isn't sugar. We need to back away from this whole project. We don't need to have everything taste like candy,

It's not the job of the FDA or WHO to tamper with scientific evidence to push people in that direction. That's how people lose trust in the institutions of science.

The WHO should hold back on condemning universal sweetening that will make it impossible for anyone to tally the amount they've consumed because people might go back to sugar? They should lie or they should say this path is also probably unsafe?

I don't really see anything inconsistent with the WHO or the FDA statements. The WHO wants health across contingencies and the FDA wants to sell diabetes causing drinks to the maximum extent that they don't provably hurt health.

"I'm going to side with the FDA on this one."

Likewise. I like to hold a suspicions mind about chemicals introduced into diets until proved safe, and sometimes their dangers can take decades to manifest. However, from aspartame's structure and its metabolites (phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol) it's difficult to see how it could be dangerous except in huge amounts. The worst being methanol and no doubt it's very nasty but the body is well adapted to metabolizing small amounts of methanol from the breakdown of normal foods. It seems unlikely anyone could consume enough aspartame to be harmful.

I'm a lot more suspicious about sucralose (chlorinated sucrose), it seems to me we ought to be much more concerned with what its three Cl atoms do during its metabolism.

Edit: seems to me WHO ought to concentrate time on reducing the population's 'bliss point' from its all-time high. Over the last 50/60 years corporations have forced up the bliss point by making drinks etc. sweeter and sweeter. We desperately need to wean the population from this high point back to more normal levels. Then we wouldn't need as much sweeteners whether natural or artificial.

> Aspartame could possibly hold the title as the most scrutinized chemical in history.

I don't understand this talking point, but I see it repeated often. Aspartame has only been approved since the 70s and was only discovered in the 1960s. The total of all the years of use/research into Aspartame doesn't even amount to a single human lifespan. It's barely over half of one! How the hell are we supposed to have any idea of the long term effects from that? In terms of "most scrutinized chemical in history" I don't think Aspartame has a chance against chemicals like water or ethanol.

This is simply conjecture but there have been numerous studies done it. Moreover, it's the most consumed artificial sweetener in the world. In this case, you'd think at least some cases of cancer would appear even by chance related to it. Yet, as far as I know, we really haven't seen any that stood up to statistical rigor.

From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers? I'd say that sample size is enough to draw a reasonable conclusion from.

I may be wrong in my assumption here but the amount of aspartame needed to cause these types of things is insane. The amount of aspartame you would need to consume to even approach a level considered mildly hazardous with this new data would be 14 sodas.

> From 1970 to now there have been what...4 generations of aspartame consumers?

The few people who started drinking it as teens and adults in the 1970s are now only in their 50s and 60s, and the generations after that have only been drinking it for a few decades. That isn't much data at all to judge long term impacts. 50 years is nothing, and a lot about our consumption of aspartame has changed drastically over that time. In the 1970s people weren't drinking 3-6 cans of diet soda a day. The average American today is drinking a bit less than the 58 gallons of soda a year that we drank in the 90s, but it's still a lot more than was being consumed for the first decade or two since aspartame was added.

Personally, I don't even drink soda and so I have no skin in this game whatsoever. I honestly have no idea what the long term risks of Aspartame are, I just doubt anyone could have much confidence with less than 50 years of research. I can say that it seems highly unlikely that there are dire short term effects at least, but I have nothing but sympathy for those who are skeptical considering that companies routinely buy research to show whatever conclusions they want to see while burying any results that are unfavorable and the FDA often seems to care more about protecting profits than human lives. We've seen again and again that companies are willing to knowingly poison people and that regulatory agencies are ineffective at protecting us from it, so I can't blame anyone for being cautious.

Considering that the WHO's stance of "possible carcinogen" isn't a strong claim in the first place and the recommendation for additional research can't hurt anyway it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years. Unless there is reason to think it's a threshold effect - no impact until X level of consumption. I'm not sure whether there is, but even if the impact is "causes cancer after 100 years", we would likely see some signs in some people after 50. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the volume of studies haven't shown small effects increasing over cohort duration.

The Ockham's Razor here - the bigger the causative effect, the more signal it should have.

> Even given these limitations, if the effect were strong, we would see some of it start to pop up after 50 years.

I think that's the argument the WHO is making. That given what we've learned over the last ~50 years it does seem possible that aspartame is increasing the rate of certain cancers. It's a pretty modest claim and they think it's worthy of more research. I find that hard to argue against. What's the harm in a bunch of independent researchers spending some time studying the long term impacts of aspartame? If it turns out the effect is very small, or non-existent it won't change anything. People can just feel more confident about chugging down gallons of diet soda every year. If it turns out that a bunch of people drinking aspartame end up with cancers after 70 years when they wouldn't have otherwise, we'd know how to prevent that for the next generation. Scientists get work, we get answers. Seems like a win/win.

There have hardly been 4 generations of aspartame consumers, since quite a few of the 1970s generation are still with us (would it be more or less if they'd had no aspartame? I have no idea, do you?) and mass use didn't kick in until later anyway.

> maybe even a bit Euro-centric and elitist

Ugh those elite Europeans who want to play it safe.. what's wrong with them?

> And given the alternative is sugar

No, the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages. We don't need sweeteners.

>the alternative is to learn to enjoy bitter beverages.

people seek replacements when things they like become scarce, not alternatives.

asking the public-at-large to wholly change preference (especially when the preference is compounded by biological bias in the way we experience taste..) will never be effective without extenuating circumstance or market control of some sort.

I sympathize with your point -- people should try to enjoy things without a lot of excess sweetness -- but it doesn't align with reality.

People should think what I want them to think! After the FDA tells me how to tell them what I want them to think

Like alcohol?

I don't understand your point, but alcohol is not safe either.

A sarcastic 'careful what you wish for'.

But to say the solution for people liking something evolution has made us like is to like things evolution made us avoid is... weird?

For some people, some bitter tastes are intense; no amount of 'learning' will ever get me to like coffee for example.

Like tea.

You do realize you can sweeten more than beverages right? What if a diabetic wants a cookie? Or ice cream?

This is why hazard ratios are important.

Aspartame and most sweeteners fall apart at high temperatures, limiting their usefulness for a lot of foodstuffs, like cookies.

Which is a shame in my opinion.

> What if a diabetic wants a cookie? Or ice cream?

Diabetics can eat cookies and ice cream, they just need to shoot themselves with insulin afterwards. It's having too much of it the problem.

Besides, if something is bad for you, you avoid it. Period. There are infinite other flavors in life to make it all about that single one. "But I want it" is not a reasonable argument.

The WHO lost credibility to me when they, at the height of the pandemic, asserted as fact that COVID is not airborne.

Not "we believe", "we suspect", "data suggests" or anything like that, but asserted it as a fact.

I agree, but studies have nowhere close to a 99% confidence interval. Half or more of these types of studies reach false conclusions and are not reproducible.