6 ms·

I stopped drinking alcohol due to the possible cancer link seeming much greater than aspartame's link to cancer. It seems strange that the studies are much more

I stopped drinking alcohol due to the possible cancer link seeming much greater than aspartame's link to cancer. It seems strange that the studies are much more conclusive on alcohol's role with cancer than aspartame, but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol. Part of me wonders why this is. One possible reason I see is that people's trust in the studies about aspartame are much lower than their trust in the studies about alcohol.

lukeschlather 3y ago
> but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol This is not true, at least with the WHO. Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen according to the WHO. It definitely causes cancer. The WHO classifies aspartame in Group 2b "possibly a carcinogen." There's some confusion over how to render uncertainty here, but the WHO does not actually classify aspartame as a carcinogen.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  I think the op meant concerns amongst the general public. Yes food safety experts have more concerns about alcohol but I would guess there are a lot more people who avoid aspartame and still drink alcoholic beverages.
  - karmaMeansCool 3y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, this is exactly what I meant to convey.
MetricExpansion 3y ago
I think this whole thread has an interesting contrast to a prior HN thread about Alcohol being unsafe at any level of consumptions and which is rated as a Group 1 carcinogen by the WHO, a much stronger designation than has been given to Aspartame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 Choice quotes from the top three comments in that thread: 1) “To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility.” 2) “The WHO is fear mongering. Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live. Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.” 3) “The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.” I think it’s just emotional reasoning and HN having a classic case of being critical when presented with evidence that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs while being uncritical of evidence that confirms them.

lukeschlather 3y ago

> but the concerns are much higher for aspartame than alcohol This is not true, at least with the WHO. Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen according to the WHO. It definitely causes cancer. The WHO classifies aspartame in Group 2b "possibly a carcinogen." There's some confusion over how to render uncertainty here, but the WHO does not actually classify aspartame as a carcinogen.

jemmyw 3y ago
I think the op meant concerns amongst the general public. Yes food safety experts have more concerns about alcohol but I would guess there are a lot more people who avoid aspartame and still drink alcoholic beverages.
- karmaMeansCool 3y ago
  Thanks for clarifying, this is exactly what I meant to convey.

MetricExpansion 3y ago

I think this whole thread has an interesting contrast to a prior HN thread about Alcohol being unsafe at any level of consumptions and which is rated as a Group 1 carcinogen by the WHO, a much stronger designation than has been given to Aspartame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34752193 Choice quotes from the top three comments in that thread: 1) “To the extent that we expect agencies like the WHO to help us make informed, practical decisions regarding this sort of absolutist statement seems like an abdication of that responsibility.” 2) “The WHO is fear mongering. Maybe it is good health politics, people are scared of alcohol and people will have a better live. Maybe it would be better to communicate the risks more quantitavily. Not everyone is stupid.” 3) “The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.” I think it’s just emotional reasoning and HN having a classic case of being critical when presented with evidence that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs while being uncritical of evidence that confirms them.