One of the world’s most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen.

(Edit- Question from OP: downvoters, do you not want me to post stories like this, or are you expressing disagreement with some of the people in the report?)

  • livus@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually am.

    Everyone has been saying it is for years, but I was never able to find any hard evidence despite it being the subject of numerous studies.

    I feel kind of naive now.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s because there hasn’t really been any hard evidence. From the article itself:

      It has four different levels of classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than how dangerous a substance is.

      “Probably carcinogenic” is thus the least supported one one can make a ruling with.

      Then it all depends on the studies themselves too. Like one study on sunscreens found that oxybenzone caused endocrine disruptions in mice; when force-fed unrealistic amounts of it. Like what does that even tell us? Don’t compulsively eat sunscreen, you could get sick?

      The chemical was prohibited nonetheless, because generally a “better safe than sorry” approach is taken. These corporations don’t want to face massive class-action lawsuits, so you can expect aspartame to be phased out.

      • Hank_Scorpio@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Probably carcinogenic” is thus the least supported one one can make a ruling with.

        gonna go ahead and assume you meant “possibly” carcinogenic?

      • livus@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thanks for the explanation! I guess it does make sense to use the precautionary principle.

        • babelspace@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are circumstances where the precautionary principle is good to apply. But overuse of it has really bad cumulative consequences.

          • livus@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think that would depend on magnitude if probability was low or indeterminate?

        • exscape@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s worth pointing out that red meat is one step higher on the list as a probable carcinogen (Class 2A vs Class 2B), as is drinking liquids above 65 C.

          One step higher in Class 1 is, among others things, the pill.