A Diet Coke Zealot Demands Answers About the Aspartame Cancer News

On Thursday morning, news broke that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), is expected to classify aspartame as a potential carcinogen in July. Simultaneously, the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives will release new findings. As someone who is an avid fan of Diet Coke, this news raised concerns for me. Could my belief in the healing powers of Diet Coke be contradicted? Would Joe Biden ban Diet Coke like he aims to ban gas stoves? Is it feasible to create a safe zone for aspartame in international waters? To ease my worries, I sought the expertise of Kevin McConway, an expert in risk and a retired professor of applied statistics from the Open University in England. Our discussion has been edited and summarized for clarity.

Dan Kois: I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me. Obviously, I am searching for justifications to continue consuming Diet Coke, as it feels vital to my survival. Is there any need for concern on my part?

Kevin McConway: There is no need to be alarmed at this point.

Will the World Health Organization really invade my kitchen and dispose of all my Diet Coke tomorrow?

Well, it certainly won't happen tomorrow! Who knows—once you discover their ultimate response, you might even consider dumping it down the drain yourself.

I can't believe it. Are there really two organizations, the IARC and the JECFA, that are on the verge of declaring verdicts on aspartame?

They hold various occupations. The assessments conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have always been challenging to comprehend. Their statements may not convey the exact message that people perceive. The IARC evaluates the potential dangers posed by different substances that could potentially lead to cancer in humans. When they mention "hazard," they refer to whether it could potentially, in any situation, increase the likelihood of cancer in most individuals. They are not evaluating the actual risk of consuming Diet Coke in the real world. They would never explicitly state, "Drinking enough Diet Coke causes cancer." Instead, their assertions are along the lines of, "Based on scientific evidence, this substance is probably or possibly a hazard."

They have also stated that working during the night may pose a potential danger, while operating a mobile phone could potentially be unsafe.

None of these instances explicitly state the existence of a potential danger. It is not their duty to fulfill that role. The onus falls upon the JECFA in this particular scenario. The JECFA, an authoritative panel specializing in food additives, bears the responsibility of evaluating such risks and proposing safe consumption thresholds.

They've already provided suggestions regarding aspartame.

Absolutely, I'm pretty sure it was in 1981.

According to them, the prospect of being in danger arises if you consume a range of 12 to 36 cans of low-calorie soda every day.

Naturally, the quantities vary depending on one's body mass, with varying amounts for kids. Nevertheless, it is still a substantial quantity!

JECFA holds the responsibility of considering the evidence provided by IARC and various other sources. The expected outcome is that both IARC and JECFA will present their findings on July 14. According to Reuters, as per their source, IARC is likely to classify aspartame as a potential hazard, which falls under the third level of hazards, below "definitely a hazard" and "probably a hazard." However, we are uncertain about JECFA's stance on this matter.

Therefore, the suggestions made by JECFA, regardless of their content, could potentially influence the policies adopted by various governmental bodies.

Various governments don't always precisely follow the suggestions provided, but they serve as a reliable reference point.

Who comprises these committees? Do they mainly consist of individuals with a deep aversion towards joy and happiness?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is negative. They specialize in toxicology. They are capable statisticians who possess knowledge about identifying potential risks. They are professionals in their field! The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has always been perplexing as they previously incorporated "risk" in their title while evaluating hazards. However, they have now rectified this error. Nonetheless, there exists a significant distinction between risk and hazard that may not be comprehended by individuals unfamiliar with risk assessment.

Imagine being struck by a meteor.

The threat posed by meteorites is something to be cautious about in specific situations, as being struck by one could result in fatality! These are extraterrestrial rocks that originate from space. However, the likelihood of such an occurrence is extremely minimal, as there is merely a single documented case throughout all of history where an individual was impacted by a meteorite.

Wow, that perspective never crossed my mind.

What individuals desire is for someone to express, behold, it's hazardous to consume 50 cans of Diet Coke on a daily basis—

—and it's not a gamble if you have a single drink. These experts in poison studies are exploring an alternative perspective. The majority of individuals are generally not concerned about, let's say, the potential of cancer development if I ingest aspartame in alternative manners, such as inhaling it. It's not a query you'd often come across, but it may arise in the minds of toxicologists.

What can we expect on July 14?

Let's imagine that Reuters is accurate in predicting the upcoming statement from IARC. It suggests that aspartame might be categorized as a potential cause of cancer, similar to using talcum powder on private areas or being employed at a dry cleaner. The evidence they present is not conclusive, and no specific information about the level of risk is mentioned. As for JECFA, it's uncertain what their stance will be. They might affirm their previous statement, or they could even propose raising the acceptable limit.

That would be fantastic.

They might argue against any form of interaction with these things. The options are endless. This presents an opportunity to ponder altering a routine—or maintaining it as is! Perhaps you would declare, "I still hold affection for this substance, and I shall persist in consuming it."

Perhaps. Therefore, on July 14th, I should begin considering stockpiling Diet Coke.

Ideally, your aim should be to understand the underlying reasons behind their decision to alter the recommendations. They won't simply state, "This is the new guideline." Instead, they will provide explanations for the revised recommendation. Furthermore, IARC will present a detailed report containing all their supporting evidence, which might be quite extensive for an average reader to delve into.

I wager that if I guzzled down 50 cans of Diet Coke, I would surely prevail!

Possibly. Best of luck to you. Personally, I don't particularly enjoy Diet Coke, but if I did, I wouldn't be concerned about this right now. It's simply too soon to make any definitive claims. When I found out that both organizations are releasing their findings on the same day, it struck me as a positive thing because perhaps people might not give much importance to the IARC. This is because there's a high chance of causing confusion.

Is there a potential for confusion or a peril of confusion?

There is definitely a potential for misunderstanding! However, I believe there is also a possibility of danger. I am optimistic that the articles published on that specific day will provide clarity.

And then I'll have to confront the consequences.

Well, you need to consume a beverage! No aspect of life is completely devoid of risks. The decision is yours to make.