I disagree with the 'massive' exposure 'needed' to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.

I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don't want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.

the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).

This is why I hate rodent studies. They always up the exposure to whatever they are testing to hyper-extreme limits. Then point their flawed results to the world and declare "See! X causes Y!"

There are even similar rat studies for marijuana that try to link it to cancer as well, despite the fact that zero people have actually died from weed. It's all overblown bullshit.

Also note most people are choosing between sugar and aspartame or another sweetener, and sugar is pretty much categorically a health risk for humans.

They’re about to declare it as possibly cancerous. Not fully cancerous.

What do you mean by this? Everything that can cause cancer is declared "possibly cancerous"; it depends on dose and exposure. Nothing is "fully cancerous" for whatever that might even mean. You can be exposed to radiation and either get cancer or not; it depends on the dose. Would you call radiation "possibly cancerous", or "fully cancerous"?

Analagously, most bacteria can cause infections but they don't always in everyone. So to label a bacteria as purely benign or purely dangerous is just as silly as trying to make a distinction between "possibly cancerous" and "fully cancerous".

Aspartame is in a lot of things, mainly sodas and gum, but you’d have to consume a lot of the stuff beyond a human limit really.

And if someone wants to minimize their risk of cancer, they should be able to make informed decisions. Knowing that at particular food-additive has higher-than-baseline chances of causing cancer allows someone with a different risk-aversion profile to make decisions wisely. If you don't mind the incidence rate at the dose you consume it at, that's fine as well. But it is useful to have it be public knowledge if something is potentially cancer-causing.

Which is no sugar. So wheres the Problem?

I worry about the "natural" sugar alternatives. We all know that aspartame is safe, it's been researched about as extensively as it can be. It only starts to be a concern when you're drinking 2 dozen diets sodas daily.

But people give "natural" a pass for some reason.

I’m pretty sure the last I read about this it was an absurd concentration that showed to potentially cause cancer. Nothing a human could drink in such concentrations.

That being said maybe that’s changed very very recently, I’ll be interested to see what their actual findings are.

A lot of things potentially cause cancer in huge concentrations.

Edit - From what I’ve read aspartame would be considered a possible carcinogen in the same class of Coffee. That doesn’t make quite the same headline though hah!

It doesn't take much for the WHO to classify something as a possible carcinogen.

Aspartame is now in the same risk category as cell phones, kimchee, and carpentry. And still considered less carcinogenic than meat, fried foods, hot beverages, and working a night shift.

Not gonna preach or anything but that stuff is trash. You guys should quit honestly. I “reset” my tastes to less sweet stuff over time and it’s incredible how different things taste after you lose the expectations they should be sweet to be delicious.

Aspartame has been in common usage as a sugar alternative for literally decades.

If it was harmful or potent enough to be dangerous on a public or individual health risk then we would have certainly known about it by now. At this stage, even WHO, are saying it's needed in HUGE concentrations.

Diet sodas aren't the only things that we consume that contains aspartame. And aspartame isn't the only thing we're exposed to that has been linked to cancer and other deseases.

Just get on with life, enjoy what you enjoy in moderation. Don't put too much thought into it otherwise you'll just end up living in fear and avoiding everything.

That will be the most important factor: the quantity needed to be harmful.

If it's the equivalent of 30 cans of diet cola a day, this is a non-issue. They will give those details when they release the report.

Not cancerous whatsoever. It's approved for use worldwide and it's one of the most studied additives on the planet.

It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.

Like the other "scary" "it causes cancer" studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it's carcinogenic.

Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human's bodyweight.

Embrace water. Become a hydro homie.

You're probably just dehydrated from drinking a small amount of soda instead of a larger amount of water.