It's interesting that the bulk of the article is suggesting that this is a bit overblown.
Quote: "The International Council of Beverages Associations' executive director Kate Loatman said public health authorities should be "deeply concerned" by the "leaked opinion", and also warned it "could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no-and low-sugar options."
It likely is a bit overblown. Moreover, it's a very good point that it's a bad system when it only delineates what confidence there is that a compound can cause cancer, and not how strong the effect is. Lots of things are technically carcinogenic, but with the effect being so weak it's negligible. Technically we already know formaldehyde is a metabolite of aspartame, and that formaldehyde is carcinogenic, but the amounts involved mean it's going to be a very minor contributor to cancer risk.
It's interesting that the bulk of the article is suggesting that this is a bit overblown.
Quote: "The International Council of Beverages Associations' executive director Kate Loatman said public health authorities should be "deeply concerned" by the "leaked opinion", and also warned it "could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no-and low-sugar options."
It likely is a bit overblown. Moreover, it's a very good point that it's a bad system when it only delineates what confidence there is that a compound can cause cancer, and not how strong the effect is. Lots of things are technically carcinogenic, but with the effect being so weak it's negligible. Technically we already know formaldehyde is a metabolite of aspartame, and that formaldehyde is carcinogenic, but the amounts involved mean it's going to be a very minor contributor to cancer risk.