• 𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚@feddit.win
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hopefully there’s more research done. It doesn’t sound like it’s “absolutely carcinogenic”.

    The “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” associated with using mobile phones are “possibly cancer-causing”. Like aspartame, this means there is either limited evidence they can cause cancer in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, or strong evidence about the characteristics.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/

    • dakku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, they came out and branded it as a “possible cause for cancer”. They’ve been studying aspartame for decades now and most they could label it with was a mere “possible”. I’m not saying it’s great to drink it when surely nowadays you can find alternative sodas sweetened with stevia or other “natural” sweeteners but I wouldn’t worry too much about this news.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is there a reason the natural sweeteners should be trusted over aspartame? From what I’ve read, you would need to drink a case of diet soda every day before it maybe even starts to be cancerous.

      • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What makes you think that stevia or “natural” sweeteners are better?

        At the very least, they have to go thought an industrial process of extraction that can leave unwanted chemical agents in the final product. And anything naturally grown is a subject to be contaminated with pesticides and other unwanted substances.

    • Einar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Am glad they publish this, though. “Possible” still tells me to be careful.

      If I consider “possible” as no harm until it’s 100% proven, I might cause serious harm to myself in the process when and if it’s 100% clear.

      Better on the side of caution, IMO.

      • DFTBA_FTW@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you drink hot coffee or tea or soup? Cause hot beverages are considered more likely to cause cancer than this designation for aspartame.

        Do you eat meat? Cause that’s two levels higher than this designation for aspartame.

        Also the studies this ruling is based on indicates you would have to drink ~30 aspartame sweetened sodas a day to be at any risk.

        • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do you drink hot coffee or tea or soup? Cause hot beverages are considered more likely to cause cancer than this designation for aspartame. Do you eat meat? Cause that’s two levels higher than this designation for aspartame.

          Sure, these things on their own, at the amount they’re generally consumed, may not cause issues. But when you are combining these things, the sum total can be worrisome. Maybe red meat alone isn’t much; maybe hot coffee alone isn’t much; maybe aspartame alone isn’t much; maybe alcohol alone isn’t much. But when you have hot coffee for breakfast, red meat for 2 meals, aspartame drinks all day, and alcohol at night, you are at a completely different level of risk. Knowing which small things contribute to this sum is important. Or, from another angle: maybe someone really likes alcohol, even acknowledging the potential cancer-causing aspect. So to somewhat offset that known risk, they’re wanting to minimize other sources of potential-cancer.

          • DFTBA_FTW@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not the point I was trying to raise.

            My point was that people love to pile on anything artificial because they see it as unnatural and they claim it’s cause they just want to be aware of the risks, but those same people usually don’t know and don’t care that things they partake of everyday are also cancer risks and much higher ones than the artificial stuff.

            My point in asking OP was because id wager (and wanted to see) they didn’t know those were cancer risks and won’t change their habits or they did know but hadn’t changed their habits.

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

            If you’re drinking 30 cans a day, I’m going to guess that switching to water won’t be the easiest of the things to change from that list. And it would be the least significant impact.