Skeptic

223 readers

1 users here now

The skeptic movement is a collective endeavor that promotes the respect for knowledge and truth, methodological naturalism, science, reason, critical thinking, and consumer protection, and aims to distinguish legitimate science from pseudoscience, uphold ideological freedom, understand cognitive biases, address specific flawed or pseudoscientific claims, maintain cultural memory of past pseudosciences and scams, and improve science communication and journalism.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Aspartame: still no evidence for cancer risk (sciencebasedmedicine.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Recently, it was disclosed that the World Health Organization (WHO) is considering reclassifying artificial sweetener aspartame as a 'possible' carcinogen, reigniting long-standing rumors and conspiracy theories about its safety. However, more than 60 scientific bodies worldwide and thousands of studies maintain aspartame's safety for human consumption, barring those with phenylketonuria.

The confusion arises from the complexities of risk research and the misunderstanding of the difference between 'hazard' and 'risk'. The WHO's classification system is focused on hazard potential, not actual risk, and this prospective reclassification of aspartame does not assert it as a definitive cancer-causing agent.

Despite ongoing debates, current evidence still firmly supports that aspartame's consumption levels in humans pose no cancer risk.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Cool. Still tastes like something with a WHO classification.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what does "hazard potential" actually mean?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hazard potential refers to the inherent capacity of a substance, activity, or process to cause harm under certain circumstances. It doesn't take into account the likelihood or circumstances of exposure, which is where risk comes in.

Think of it this way: a hazardous substance is one that could cause harm. For instance, a poisonous chemical has the inherent potential to cause harm, thus it is a hazard. However, the risk associated with this hazardous substance is dependent on factors like how, how much, how long, and how often a person is exposed to it.

In the context of the aspartame debate, the hazard potential refers to the possibility that aspartame could potentially cause harm (like cancer) under certain circumstances. However, this doesn't necessarily translate to a significant risk for humans consuming aspartame in normal dietary amounts because the exposure is much lower than the levels where harm was observed. The actual risk to humans is determined by the likelihood of that harm occurring at the levels of aspartame consumption typical in human diets.

Or at least that's how I understood it from the article 😅

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you! Your explanation was very easy to read and helpful!

Now I'm wondering how much one would have to consume in order to get cancer, and if those mukbang youtuber people need to get a message from the WHO personally ...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you very much!