A Diet Coke Zealot Demands Answers About the Aspartame Cancer News

On Thursday morning, Reuters announced that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is responsible for cancer research within the World Health Organization, is planning to declare aspartame potentially cancer-causing in July. Simultaneously, the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives will release their latest findings. This news worried me as a devoted consumer of Diet Coke. I wondered if my perception of Diet Coke as a healing elixir would be contradicted. I also pondered if Joe Biden might follow his desire to ban gas stoves by banning Diet Coke. Could there possibly be a place in international waters where aspartame is deemed safe? To gain some perspective, I contacted Kevin McConway, an expert on risk and emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in England. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dan Kois: I appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation with me. Clearly, I am seeking reassurance that consuming Diet Coke is not harmful, as it has become an essential part of my life. Is there any need for me to be concerned or alarmed?

Kevin McConway: It's not the right time to freak out.

Will the World Health Organization suddenly invade my kitchen and empty all the Diet Coke down the drain?

Well, it won't be happening tomorrow! Who knows—once you discover their ultimate statement, you might even consider disposing of it down the drain on your own.

No way! Are you telling me that there are actually two organizations, namely IARC and JECFA, that are currently in the process of making decisions regarding aspartame?

They hold various occupations. The evaluations conducted by IARC have always posed a challenge in terms of comprehension. They do not precisely communicate what individuals generally believe they convey. They evaluate the potential risks of different substances that may contribute to cancer in humans. Their interpretation of risk pertains to whether it could potentially, in any circumstances, increase the likelihood of cancer in the majority of people. They are not evaluating the actual risk in the real world associated with consuming Diet Coke. They would never go as far as stating, "It definitively causes cancer if consumed in large quantities." They simply state, "Based on scientific evidence, this substance is likely a hazard or possibly a hazard."

They've also mentioned that working during nighttime could be dangerous and using a mobile phone might pose a potential risk.

They do not mention any potential danger in any of these situations. It is not their duty to provide such information. In this scenario, the JECFA holds the responsibility for that task. The JECFA is a proficient panel specializing in food additives. Their role entails evaluating the risks associated with substances like these and providing guidance on the appropriate levels for consumption.

They have already provided suggestions regarding aspartame.

Indeed, I am of the opinion that it happened in 1981.

According to their statement, consuming 12 to 36 diet soda cans daily would put you in a vulnerable position.

Naturally, it varies based on one's body mass, with varying portions for kids. However, it is still a considerable quantity!

JECFA holds the responsibility of considering the evidence provided by IARC and other sources. The expected outcome is for both IARC and JECFA to present their findings on July 14. According to Reuters, there is a claim from a source that IARC will state that aspartame is potentially dangerous, ranking it as a hazard at the third level, which falls below "definitely a hazard" and "probably a hazard." However, it remains uncertain how JECFA will react to this information.

So, the suggestion made by JECFA could potentially influence the policies of various governments worldwide.

Various governments do not always adhere precisely to those suggestions. However, it serves as a robust indication.

Who constitutes these committees? Are they predominantly individuals who harbor distaste for joy and merriment?

To my knowledge, no, they are not. They specialize in evaluating toxicology. They possess statistical prowess and a profound understanding of risk. They are highly knowledgeable! It has always been perplexing when it comes to the IARC, as they used to incorporate "risk" in their title despite solely assessing hazards. However, they have now rectified this inconsistency. Nonetheless, many individuals outside the realm of risk assessment fail to comprehend the technical disparity between risk and hazard.

Imagine experiencing the impact of a meteorite.

The peril caused by celestial rocks - there is a potential for danger in specific situations, for if one was to be struck by a meteorite, it could result in fatality! It is essentially a space rock. Nevertheless, the likelihood of this occurring is extremely rare, as throughout documented time, only a single individual has been recorded to have been impacted by a meteorite.

Wow, it never crossed my mind to consider it from that perspective.

What individuals desire is for someone to acknowledge that consuming 50 cans of Diet Coke daily can be hazardous.

—and it poses no danger if you have a single drink. These scientists specializing in poisons are examining an alternative aspect. The majority of individuals do not ponder, let's say, if I ingest aspartame through a different means, like inhaling it, will it lead to cancer in my body? That's not a query one typically raises, but it is a query that toxicologists might raise.

What can we expect on July 14th?

Assuming Reuters' information is accurate, it is anticipated that IARC will classify aspartame in a group that includes potentially cancer-causing substances, like applying talcum powder to intimate areas or working in a dry cleaning establishment. It is worth noting that although there is some evidence, it is not indisputable, and no specific details about the level of risk have been disclosed. It remains uncertain what JECFA's stance on this matter will be, as they could affirm their previous position without any changes. It is also plausible that they might even propose raising the permissible limit.

That would be fantastic.

Alternatively, some individuals might argue against any interaction with such substances. The possibilities are endless. This serves as an opportune moment for reflection on altering a routine, or perhaps maintaining the current one! You might express, "I still have a deep fondness for this substance and intend to persist in consuming it."

Perhaps that's true. Therefore, on July 14th, I should begin considering the idea of stockpiling Diet Coke.

Ideally, it would be beneficial to explore the reasons behind their decision to alter the recommendations. They will not simply state a single numerical value as the new recommendation; instead, they provide explanations for their choice. Moreover, IARC will produce a lengthy document presenting all the evidence supporting their decision, which may be challenging for an average reader to fully comprehend.

I'm confident that if I consumed 50 Diet Coke cans in one go, I would be able to handle it!

Perhaps. Best of luck to you. Personally, I'm not a fan of Diet Coke, but if I were, I wouldn't be concerned about this right now. It's simply too premature to make any conclusions. Upon realizing that both organizations are releasing their findings simultaneously, I thought it might be beneficial. This way, perhaps individuals won't focus too much on the IARC and the potential for misunderstandings.

Is there a chance of confusion or a peril of confusion?

There is definitely a potential for misunderstanding! However, I believe there is a chance of danger too. I am hopeful that the accounts concerning it on that particular day will provide clarity.

And then I'll have to deal with the consequences.

Well, everyone needs to have a beverage! There are always some risks involved in any aspect of life. The decision is yours to make.