So maybe the huge worry people had after the news that WHO would classify it as cancerous was a little too much. I think the media could have reported on it in a bit more responsible way.

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Something being carcinogenic is not the same as it being likely to cause cancer. I wish this was a better understood distinction in the public. It comes down to how carcinogenic it is and how much you’re exposed to/consume. It is technically true that aspartame is carcinogenic – it’s a scientific fact. But like they say here, normal human consumption amounts makes the likelihood of getting cancer from it negligible.

    It’s important though to recognize that carcinogens come in varying levels of strength. I’m fine with drinking two cans of diet soda, but I would never wash my hands in benzene. Benzene and aspartame are both carcinogenic, but benzene is WAY more potent. We’ve limited the amount of benzene that can be in gasoline for this reason – but again note, it’s limited, not eliminated.

    I took an environmental engineering class in college, and our professor had a very cute but apt tagline. Dilution is the solution to pollution. You’ll never get rid of 100% of something. But reducing its concentration can make it safe regardless. Same idea goes here.

    Thanks for coming to my completely unsolicited Ted Talk.

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

      I remember an independent study being done a few years back that basically came to the conclusion that to actually have a chance of getting cancer from aspertame, you’d have to drink like 52 cans of diet coke a day for 50 years.