I disagree with the 'massive' exposure 'needed' to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.

I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don't want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.

the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).

This is why I hate rodent studies. They always up the exposure to whatever they are testing to hyper-extreme limits. Then point their flawed results to the world and declare "See! X causes Y!"

There are even similar rat studies for marijuana that try to link it to cancer as well, despite the fact that zero people have actually died from weed. It's all overblown bullshit.

Also note most people are choosing between sugar and aspartame or another sweetener, and sugar is pretty much categorically a health risk for humans.

Is that a measurement relative to mass/size? Because if not, you'd need to consume a shitload of it to really do anything.

There's a ton of studies with these problems. Researchers simply engrossing the test subject in the material until something bad happens. Unless you're researching on a test group of humans, then suddenly all the levels are actually less than typical.

It all depends if you're looking to prove that it's harmful or not. Want to find it's harmful? Get a bunch of mice and expose them to as much of whatever substance you need to in order to find a problem.... Want to prove something is safe, set up a "double blind" study of the effects on humans, and give half of them regulated and limited doses of it for weeks or months until you can convince everyone that "nothing bad happened".

I have a problem with research done in either way. Researchers should be neutral, and just test and let the data speak for itself. (With limited interpretation for the people who read it)

Instead, almost all research is funded by someone with an agenda who is trying to find out if x is good/bad, and prove or disprove a specific stance. Argh

Still proves it may cause cancer, the only thing seriously in question is the dose. Seemingly nobody knows what a safe upper bound is for any population.

Hello Cocacola CEO