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?)

  • 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.