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
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      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
        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
          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
          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
            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.

          • exscape@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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.