World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
Worth point out is that it doesn't even reach the same classification as red meat which is classified as probably causing cancer.
theres a lot of things that MIGHT cause cancer i feel like if youre drinking enough diet coke to cause cancer its not the sweetener its your impulse control
It's not this straight forward. I read the reuters article about this that goes into more detail.
But basically, IARC is only looking at if the substance can be carcinogenic, regardless of the quantity it takes for it to be harmful to humans.
There is another organization, called JECFA that is specifically for advice for individuals. This is where "food regulations" would come from.
The JECFA is set to show off their findings at the same time as IARC is gonna make their announcement. I feel like some of you guys are jumping the gun here due to the title of the articles coming out.
Click bait works, unfortunately.
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...
Obesity is like the second biggest risk factor for cancers. This post reads like a non-medical professional's interpretation of medical advice. I don't mean to offend, because that is very common. But the information presented here is devoid of context in a way that makes it potentially misleading.
Gonna try to cut a line down the middle and say I’m not seeing very convincing evidence one way versus another. Lotta finger pointing and honestly getting way more intense about diet soda than I thought anyone would.
Gotta say that my family (and me until high school) drink wayyy to much diet soda. Like sugar, or aspartame it’s a bit worrying and when you drink caffeinated sweetness all day you’re probably going to feel defensive about someone saying it’s gonna kill you.
I am a bit of the mind that it may only be significantly carcinogenic at super high doses, but who knows if anyone is getting those doses either from commercial beverages or mixing it in the same proportions as sugar in their iced tea
Obesity is one of the leading preventable causes of cancer. Along with tobacco, alcohol, sun exposure, and red meat consumption. Aspartame is not a major cause of cancer in humans. If it helps you lose weight, then you're improving your cancer risk.
Possible carcinogen is an extremely low standard for the WHO, this probably means close to nothing
Barbecue sausages are also carcinogenic. What matters is how much and in what doses. Hey WHO: Show me scientific, peer revieved, reproduced in independed labs papers with solid proofs. Not preliminary results of "one research". Then I will weigh pros and cons and decide if I should use it. Strangely decades of use under supervision of FDA and other reputable institutions had no remarks like WHO. Don't forget that dihydrate monoxide also promote cancer, and we all drink it like water.
/edit typo, grammar/
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/aspartame.html
lol. The cancer folks think its fine.
Honestly nothing can be more dangerous than the OG coke. The amount of sugar in that can is incomprehensible
This is another point that no-one makes. While it is clear that the best alternative to a sweetened drink would be water, often it is the "healthier and natural" version with real sugar which is just incomparably more damaging to human bodies.
In general, the American Cancer Society does not determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), but we do look to other respected organizations for help with this. Based on current research, some of these organizations have made the following determinations:
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that “the use of aspartame as a general purpose sweetener… is safe.”
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has stated, “Studies do not suggest an increased risk associated with aspartame consumption for… leukaemia, brain tumours or a variety of cancers, including brain, lymphatic and haematopoietic (blood) cancers.”
Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link.
There was a study that found that Aspartame increased cancer risk, which was used as the base for all the current claims. The study was found to be flawed and it has not been reproduced since then, but due to confirmation bias and the desire to manipulate others the idea keeps communicating. That's one weakness of science, you can make up research and the average person will use it to confirm their biases, even if it's one study versus a hundred
That being said, there may be other risks with artificial sweeteners, I'm just talking about that specific study
Science is complicated and most people don't know how to apply it. For example, an university graduate does not know how to read published research and how to apply it to the real world, because beyond training that needs a lot of practice and feedback. People think that hearing the news or reading the paper will let them know the truth; it won't because they haven't developed the capacity to do so, yet they ask for a source they can't really understand. That's why you are supposed to go to a professional instead of doing what you think you should do on your own
The only people I've found that are worth giving sources to are PhDs or experts in their fields. Everyone else just fucks up interpreting them
WHO is one of those organizations whose advice I wish I could take at face value, but with anything that should be science based, it only takes a few disappointing compromises to take away a lot of trust.
And how their recommendations result in our country's maternity wards try acupuncture and breathing as pain relief first, leaving mothers in debilitating pain for hours before giving them any of the real, safe, proven painkillers.
I get the reasoning - that accepting the commonly held medical belief of e.g. China allows them to hold some authority there and be a more global force of good - but to me it just make anything they say go on the "ok interesting, I'll fact check it later" pile.
Aspartame just like about anything is not good for you in large quantities. This probably doesn't concern you if you just drink moderate amounts of sugar free drinks.
I sort of cringe (more of a nose wrinkle really) at OP's "it's known in some circles to be bad" You see beliefs and correlative evidence constantly misrepresented as proof and truth in food and medical science (reporting and discussion).
I get it. The body is a hugely complicated system, it's hard to figure these things out. What does even figuring them out mean with the amount of complicating factors of this affects that which affects this which causes this.
I'm open to the idea that lobbying and such means Aspartame (and other industrial food products) has really been pushed through.
It's also obviously been studied quite a bit and it's hard to believe all the studies saying it's safe at recommended levels are bunk or fraudulent.
This news was on another instance where the discussion included that the IARC carcinogen classifications do not take into account exposure/dosage. A whole bunch of things can be carcinogenic depending on exposure. Haven't we all read how the rats that got cancer from saccharine had epic doses? It was just magnitudes more than a human would consume.
If an observational study won't cut it (I see you, @xthedeerlordx, and appreciate your comment and explanation), how does one prove the causation? Don't you need randomized controlled trials which would be extremely onerous controlling for various factors and basically making the (ideally large number of) participants live in a lab for whatever amount of time the study takes to really prove causation? I'd genuinely like to know. It seems like for a lot of things correlation after correlation after correlation is the best we're going to get.
For context, this is the same designation that bacon currently has, amongst a whole bunch of other things we all eat.
This post might get buried, but I feel it needs to be said.
N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonists cause excitoxity, resulting in neuronal death:
NMDA and Glutamate Evoke Excitotoxicity at Distinct Cellular Locations in Rat Cortical Neurons In Vitro / "We hypothesized that exogenous glutamate is toxic neu- rons under these circumstances by activating somatic receptors exclusively (Speliotes et al., 1994). In the present study, we provide experimental evidence that directly supports this hypothesis."
Asparatame binds to NMDA sites:
Effect of aspartame on N-methyl-D-aspartate-sensitive L-[3H]glutamate binding sites in rat brain synaptic membranes "These in vitro findings suggested that aspartame may act directly on the N-methyl-D-aspartate-sensitive glutamate recognition sites in the brain synaptic membranes."
There are many sources which indicate that aspartame also compromises the blood-brain barrier, which is not exactly a good thing (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5617129/)
Make of this what you will, but our brains produce as much glutamate as we need. In case of head trauma such as stroke, it produces too much, which results in cell death and probably a lot of the disability following a stroke.
I don't think we need any extra NMDA agonists in our diet, but then again I'm just a layman in this area.
Full disclosure I'm going completely tangential for this one.
I find it believable at best that aspartame can cause cancer, but causing weight gain just makes no sense to me.
I used to be FAT. 250 lbs. I didn't really make that many changes to my diet, except for cutting refined sugars way back.
I switched to Diet Coke, got off the little debbies, and I slimmed right down and now I'm hovering around 135.
It would make sense to say that I would maintain that weight or maybe gained more if aspartame was as harmful as this article says, but I'm not seeing it.
If anyone's seen aspartame's wikipedia article, it's like the most corporate compromised entry I've seen. In fact this very report is already being covered up there.
Regular and diet sodas are both clearly junk that humans shouldn't be consuming.
So it’s like the list of carcinogens in California that everything is basically carcinogenic
IDK why people are so determined to consume that shit.
Because I like cold carbonated drinks, I like the taste of cola, but I don't like the thick, sugary, syrupy taste of actual Coke?
Surely you realize it's not because we have "aspartame cravings" or that we somehow think it's healthier (there's nothing healthy about Coke in any form anyway)...
So let's say we stop playing semantics to the degree of harm and say that aspartame is not good for humans. Ok. What sweetener currently on the market is the least damaging option for me to pursue?
Feels like there are 2 classes of sweeteners:
- Proven to be bad for your health
- Not yet proven to be bad for your health
And whenever one in the second category becomes popular, it inevitably transitions to the first category.
Also, "proven" is a minefield these days. There are so many agents with so many agendas conducting these so-called medical studies. It's difficult to know what to trust. For example, for decades the sugar industry has been paying "scientists" to conduct dodgy studies into the effects of fat in your diet in an attempt to deflect from the true horrors of added sugar.
Stevia Derived from a plant in South American, Stevia is a calorie-free herb that is actually used as a pre-packaged replacement for sugar and artificial sweeteners. It is sold as a herbal powdered extract in most health food stores and is incredibly sweet, with the refined extracts of Stevia (steviosides) reported to have 200-300 times the amount of sweetness as sugar.
Advantages Stevia is an all-natural herbal product that has been used for centuries by native Indians in Paraguay. It has been thoroughly tested in dozens of tests around the world and found to be completely non-toxic. It can be a part of a healthy diet for anyone with diabetes since it does not raise blood sugar levels. Both Stevia and Stevioside extracts are extremely heat stable and can be used in cooking and baking. Disadvantages Stevia does not caramelise as sugar does. Studies conducted by US researchers in the 1980s suggested that DNA changes occurred when stevia was tested with a certain bacteria. Certain health organisations are still not sure of its safety, with the US Food and Drug Administration defining it as an unapproved food additive when in whole leaf or crude-extract form on account of it having not been clinically tested in these forms.
Source: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/sweeteners/which-artificial-sweetener-is-right-for-me.html