James Wong, a science writer, shared a Tweet which read: “According to the WHO aspartame is as carcinogenic as aloe vera and pickled veg. And less carcinogenic than eating red meat, drinking hot drinks, or being a hairdresser.”
“It’s rather like reporting an earthquake measuring 2 on the Richter scale hit a major city, without explaining that earthquakes of 2.5 or less are rarely felt, but can be measured on a seismograph,” he added.
If this is in regards to aspartame’s possibly carcinogenic classification? If so yes, Coke zero uses it too. But keep in mind it’s a very weak category that also includes aloe Vera, pickled veg, and RF waves (like used by cell phones)
I think the carcinogenic part is exaggeated but there has been multiple studies suggesting that aspartame makes you gain more weight and it affects your body’s ability to process sugars so it’s still not healthy
Soda is gross once you give it up for a long time too! People can start with seltzer if they still need the carbonation. They can’t expect soda replacement from it but after a while it’s what you’ll prefer anyway.
I gave up soda a long time ago, and the other week I got a Code Red 20oz out of the blue because it seemed like a good treat. It tasted like pure syrup and I swear I was sweating and my heart was fluttering. So unpleasant and unnecessary.
I just returned from a very long trip and didn’t really have time to reply to the comments earlier- sorry about that. From what I’ve seen from the comments, the risk doesn’t seem to be very high, lower than beef. I think I’m gonna continue drinking it but if they say it’s worse when the research papers are released I’m gonna quit and switch to regular coke.
I drink two cokes a month and that is it. I'd rather do that then drink fake cancer boosted coke. That said I just ate char broiled steak medium done , which would probably kill me faster than those two cokes zero or not.
Okay since I haven't seen it said here so far. Aspartame is being classified as "a possible carcinogen". The reason for that is observational data. We have observed an increase in obesity related cancers in people who also have daily intake of aspartame. This observation is 1.15 times higher than the background rate (people not having daily aspartame and developing obesity related cancers), so that is what is prompting the classification. There is additional research into if this connection is casual (Synchronicity) and it seems that there is some initial evidence to suggest this is more than just a casual connection.
Remember back to science class. We science by making an observation, posing a hypothesis, testing that out, and then drawing conclusions from it. This move is one of the first steps after the observation part in the political sphere. Science is just making an observation, however, governments are free to move in lock step with those observations or wait till science gets a bit further along in the process. Really depends on the flavor of government we're talking about, but the important part is that whole section of the equation is distinctly NOT SCIENCE.
So that said, where everyone else is chiming in on with aloe vera and what not is the classification the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is placing aspartame into. This is a political group that moves in step with science research. This group has four levels. 1 - You will get cancer, 2a - Pretty likely you will get cancer, 2b - Maybe you might get cancer, 3 - You will not get cancer. Aspartame is being moved into 2b.
There is still a lot of research left to go about the links between aspartame and cancer. For example, aspartame seems to only cause cancers typically related to obesity, so is it the cause or are obese people just selectively drinking it? This is what I referred to at the start as a casual connection. BUT, there is a whole process before we can technically say "YES". So that process must happen first. But there's going to be people who attempt to say "well yes, obese people get obese cancers, duh" and initial evidence suggests that there is a bit more that we ought not to just hand wave away.
As for what you SHOULD do. You should do what you feel is best. If it puts your mind to ease to nix aspartame from your diet, you should most absolutely do that. But yes Coke Zero has the exact kind and chemical make up of sweetener that Diet Coke has. So if that is the thing you are trying to excise, Coke Zero is not a respite.
I just wanted to leave a comment about Coke Zero using a different sweetener than Diet Coke, but then I looked it up and I guess I was completely wrong? So just in case anyone else heard that - Coke Zero also uses aspartame.
The dose makes the poison. It is carcinogenic but current estimates are that you’d need to drink several litres a day to meaningfully increase your risk.
There are other good reasons to find a healthier drink but this isn’t one of them. Most artificial sweeteners have some kind of risk attached so there is no point switching to a different diet soda.
I would presume so. Both contain aspertame, and afaik this is the reason why they say it is carcinogen. So very much „diet“ stuff and sweeteners has this in, you should be careful.
I would suggest waiting for WHO to publish their findings/study/recommendations on aspartame. From a brief look across a few reports it seems to be on a similar level to like, red meat levels of carcinogen.
However I am not a scientist so I cannot personally judge the veracity of these claims
What I meant is that an "increase by 30%" means nothing without first knowing your individual base risk. If you have, say, a 1% risk of getting a certain type of cancer at some point in your life and it increases by 30%, you now have a 1.3% risk. I don't know whether that's enough of an argument to deny yourself the pleasure of a soft drink you like.
Add comment