Full title from the link is "Aspartame sweetener used in Diet Coke a possible carcinogen, WHO’s cancer research agency to say - sources" I wouldn't normally post rumours and speculation but i)...
Exemplary
Full title from the link is "Aspartame sweetener used in Diet Coke a possible carcinogen, WHO’s cancer research agency to say - sources"
I wouldn't normally post rumours and speculation but i) this is from Reuters and ii) it's important to get the messaging about IARC right, because previous experience has shown that people simply don't understand the difference between "this thing definitely causes cancer" and "this thing does not cause very much cancer". (See the confusion about processed red meat as an example of this). There will be a lot of confusing reporting (even from journos trying to accurately communicate the information) and there will be a lot of misinformation - both from the food industry and from anti-artificial sweetener "health bloggers".
IARC has four categories about the strength, the quality, of evidence.
Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans
Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans
Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans
Group 3 Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
Group 2B is pretty weak, and I'd be keen to see what the dose is, and whether it's in humans or mice.
Group 2 (A and B): "This category includes agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances are assigned to either group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and other relevant data."
Group 2A means this
Group 2A: "The agent (mixture) is probably carcinogenic to humans . The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are probably carcinogenic to humans."
"This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent (mixture) may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent, mixture or exposure circumstance may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans."
Examples include diesel engine exhaust, Formaldehyde and PCBs.
Group 2B means this
Group 2B: "The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans. "
"The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent, mixture or exposure circumstance for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but limited evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from other relevant data may be placed in this group."
This is some great nuance to add and I love that this is the top comment. This reminds me of the recent uproar in my country when our Health body changed its recommendation to only having two...
This is some great nuance to add and I love that this is the top comment.
This reminds me of the recent uproar in my country when our Health body changed its recommendation to only having two alcoholic drinks per week to avoid adverse health risks and people lost their shit because no one reads full articles or bothers to understand probabilities.
Made for a great YouTube video but also reinforced to me that even when you give most people useful information they don't know what to do with it. Really underscored the importance for me of compotent news agencies being able to provide nuance and how much that is missing in today's world.
I’ll add to this that public health messaging doesn’t directly correlate to the exact science behind the recommendations. They also have to consider how people will receive the information and how...
I’ll add to this that public health messaging doesn’t directly correlate to the exact science behind the recommendations. They also have to consider how people will receive the information and how they’ll follow it. As an example if the studies recommend that 6 fruit and veg a day can meet nutritional needs, one country might recommend eating 5 fruit and vegetables a day, because they’ve determined that people will not be overwhelmed by this low ish number and will meet or exceed it; another country will recommend 8, because for their population it’s determined that a higher number makes people strive to reach it and even if they don’t get the full 8 they’ve probably hit 5 or 6 which is sufficient. On the other hand with drinks, some populations will always drink more than recommended, so a lower number means that although they’re still going over they’re (hopefully) still drinking less than before.
I know this is true but I hate it. It just erodes public trust in institutions when it they play games like this. The public is not too stupid to make our own decisions. Just tell us the real...
I know this is true but I hate it. It just erodes public trust in institutions when it they play games like this. The public is not too stupid to make our own decisions. Just tell us the real numbers and go away.
The flip side is that having so many of these labels, let alone with differences between the source as well as other jurisdictions, means people seeing them are eventually likely to ignore all of...
The flip side is that having so many of these labels, let alone with differences between the source as well as other jurisdictions, means people seeing them are eventually likely to ignore all of them. Stuff like “California says everything causes cancer. People seem fine. these labels are all exaggerated.”
That's interesting! Did not know these classifications were broken down like this, from reading previous media coverage on similar matters I thought it was a single list with a binary...
That's interesting! Did not know these classifications were broken down like this, from reading previous media coverage on similar matters I thought it was a single list with a binary classification. This makes a lot more sense!
I once heard that nearly everything you could ingest increases your risk of cancer to some extent except maybe water, because metabolism itself produces "free radicals" which can damage cells in...
I once heard that nearly everything you could ingest increases your risk of cancer to some extent except maybe water, because metabolism itself produces "free radicals" which can damage cells in ways which very rarely make them cancerous. The important metric how much the risk is increased: some compounds (like benzene and radioactive particles) basically guarantee that you'll get cancer, some (like particles from smoking) don't guarantee but raise your risk significantly.
Even in the case of benzene and radioactive particles, it's still a probability game and the dose matters. For example, pretty much everyone is constantly exposed to small amounts of benzene from...
Even in the case of benzene and radioactive particles, it's still a probability game and the dose matters. For example, pretty much everyone is constantly exposed to small amounts of benzene from car exhaust and other sources, but at a low enough level that most of us will not get benzene-related cancers in our lifetimes.
It’s been many years since I looked at this but I remember aspartame coming up as a discussion in my toxicology course in grad school. There was a study at some point where they were able to give...
It’s been many years since I looked at this but I remember aspartame coming up as a discussion in my toxicology course in grad school. There was a study at some point where they were able to give rats bladder cancer by feeding them an absurd amount of it - translating to like, gallons of diet soda a day in humans - but at least then not much in the way of human evidence.
If it ends up in 2b, well, that’s fine. We can file it away with all the other random stuff in 2b that doesn’t impact the majority of people.
I don’t have anything against the IARC lists, I just don’t think they were intended for laymen audiences or for reporters to run around telling everyone xyz is the new carcinogen to be afraid of.
I have something against IARC lists. “We failed to prove a negative, so we’re going to say it’s a positive” is extremely unscientific. And there is no reasonable way to interpret “possibly” than...
I have something against IARC lists. “We failed to prove a negative, so we’re going to say it’s a positive” is extremely unscientific. And there is no reasonable way to interpret “possibly” than “we have some reason to think it might be”. So putting compounds we have minimal reason to think might be carcinogenic but just haven’t proven for sure in a category labeled “possibly” is disingenuous. Furthermore their examples of compounds that are “possibly” carcinogenic are styrene and gasoline, which are indeed not carcinogenic but ARE very toxic. Since the public understandably doesn’t have a great handle on the difference, I feel these examples are intentionally misleading. I feel they should use “common essential oils and inhalation of metal oxides” as a better example.
Honestly, when it comes to determining whether something is going to cause lasting harm to a swath of the population, I'd prefer that they be more cautious than needed.
Honestly, when it comes to determining whether something is going to cause lasting harm to a swath of the population, I'd prefer that they be more cautious than needed.
All bread when baked contains acrylamide which is toxic and a known carcinogen. Toasting any bread increased the carcinogen. Very few people are going to believe scientists if they are told that...
All bread when baked contains acrylamide which is toxic and a known carcinogen. Toasting any bread increased the carcinogen. Very few people are going to believe scientists if they are told that all bread is deadly, or that toast is deadly. Unless I'm just getting old and jaded, that is.
Something like the level of acrylamide in a slice of toast should maybe be the baseline of "acceptable risk" for most consumers. Avoiding all carcinogens is next to impossible it seems, making that the goal is going to risk consumers getting fatigue and not being willing to avoid any carcinogens.
Ah yes, big corporations are always looking out for us consumers, how dare the science people mislead us.
The body, whose members include Mars Wrigley, a Coca-Cola (KO.N) unit and Cargill, said it had "serious concerns with the IARC review, which may mislead consumers".
Ah yes, big corporations are always looking out for us consumers, how dare the science people mislead us.
Since 1981, JECFA has said aspartame is safe to consume within accepted daily limits. For example, an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda – depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage – every day to be at risk.
I started drinking coke zero to help me kick beer, it used to be coke stevia then they cancelled it at the beginning of the pandemic unfortunately, and I can probably drink that much in a day. Not...
I started drinking coke zero to help me kick beer, it used to be coke stevia then they cancelled it at the beginning of the pandemic unfortunately, and I can probably drink that much in a day. Not saying that's good, but compared to the beer it's better.
Thanks! Honestly now that I’m thinking about it I should probably switch to flavoured water so I still get the can experience but without the aspartame. I just really wish coke stevia comes back :(
Thanks! Honestly now that I’m thinking about it I should probably switch to flavoured water so I still get the can experience but without the aspartame. I just really wish coke stevia comes back :(
Yes, but also the "depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage" is doing some heavy lifting. 12 cans of soda is about 6 liters, and that's not a ludicrous amount of liquid to drink in a...
Yes, but also the "depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage" is doing some heavy lifting. 12 cans of soda is about 6 liters, and that's not a ludicrous amount of liquid to drink in a day. At that point, if someone is drinking diet soda for hydration getting over that line is fairly easy.
Edit: Also, without detail regarding can size, it's even less useful.
Yes, but you know what I mean? There are people who just don't drink water. All their hydration comes from other sources. They're then drinking soda or milk or juice. I'm not saying it's healthy,...
Yes, but you know what I mean? There are people who just don't drink water. All their hydration comes from other sources. They're then drinking soda or milk or juice. I'm not saying it's healthy, just that it's a thing that happens.
I used to know a person like this as a kid, no idea what happened to them but I can't imagine living like that. I mean, you either grow out of it or you're going to die of diabetes or something else.
I used to know a person like this as a kid, no idea what happened to them but I can't imagine living like that. I mean, you either grow out of it or you're going to die of diabetes or something else.
Kidney stones So many kidney stones. I know someone who doesn't drink water, only diet soda or Crystal Light lemonade. Neither of those is going to give you diabetes, but he has so damn many...
Kidney stones
So many kidney stones. I know someone who doesn't drink water, only diet soda or Crystal Light lemonade. Neither of those is going to give you diabetes, but he has so damn many kidney stones.
Twelve cans is 4.26L but that does seem like way too much of a daily intake of anything. I think that's closer to the daily fluid intake overall but that includes water, other beverages, and food.
Twelve cans is 4.26L but that does seem like way too much of a daily intake of anything. I think that's closer to the daily fluid intake overall but that includes water, other beverages, and food.
And how big are those absurdly big bucket sized drinks some fast food places offer?! I’m sure they are outliers, but I bet there are people who drink a few of those in a day
And how big are those absurdly big bucket sized drinks some fast food places offer?! I’m sure they are outliers, but I bet there are people who drink a few of those in a day
6 liters of anything seems (to me) like a ludicrous amount to drink in one day. I highly doubt I've ever drunk that much of anything in one day in my entire life. Maybe someone running a marathon...
6 liters of anything seems (to me) like a ludicrous amount to drink in one day. I highly doubt I've ever drunk that much of anything in one day in my entire life. Maybe someone running a marathon or biking in the Tour de France would drink that much? Idk, it just sounds ludicrous to me, anyhow
Yeah I drink an absurd amount of soda (I'm pretty sure most people who care about eating healthy would be aghast at how much I drink) and I don't even drink that much.
Yeah I drink an absurd amount of soda (I'm pretty sure most people who care about eating healthy would be aghast at how much I drink) and I don't even drink that much.
Yes, it's a lot of soda. In the UK one can of soda is about 330 ml. (I show my working so that people can easily see if I make a mistake. I find converting to and from US customary units a bit...
Yes, it's a lot of soda.
In the UK one can of soda is about 330 ml.
(I show my working so that people can easily see if I make a mistake. I find converting to and from US customary units a bit tricky.)
12 * 330 is 3960, or roughly 4 litres.
36 * 330 is 11880 or roughly 11 litres.
4 litres in fluid ounces is, er, either 135 fluid ounces (Google's calculator) or 155 fluid ounces (if I multiply 4 by 33.81 (how many US fluid ounces per litre)).
An original 7-11 Big Gulp is 32 fluid ounces, but they also do much bigger sizes too:
7-Eleven commissioned the Sanford Advertising Agency which came up with its name and tag line “7-Eleven’s Big Gulp gives you another kind of freedom: Freedom of choice.”.[2][3] Called Big Gulp because it was initially the largest such drink available at any retailer, 7-Eleven eventually introduced larger sizes. In 1986, they introduced the 44-US-fluid-ounce (1,300 ml) Super Big Gulp, followed by the 64-US-fluid-ounce (1,900 ml) Double Gulp in 1989 (later reduced to 50-US-fluid-ounce (1,500 ml)),[4] and eventually as limited time offerings the X-Treme Gulp and Team Gulp.[2] Conversely, 7-Eleven also introduced the Lil' Big Gulp (originally simply called Gulp), which stands at 22-US-fluid-ounce (650 ml). At 128-US-fluid-ounce (3,800 ml), the Team Gulp remains the largest fountain offering in the world.[5]
There's a couple of things in here from a public health perspective that are worrying.
It's really cheap.
It's really easy to get.
It was being sold with a "freedom" tag, and that's a powerful thing for lots of people. Even in the UK we have a lot of "why is the government telling me to drink less sugar? Why are they getting involved?" and the freedom thing is part of that.
When I look at the sizing I think they're absurdly large, but then I look at common UK bottle sizes and they're comparable. I think the difference to me is the expectation of "this is something you'll drink in one day" vs "this is something you'll drink over several days", and now I look at that I know I'm wrong.
One thing that that is not yet that often mentioned is the cocktail effect where low exposure to known problematic chemicals causes combined effects greater than their individual exposures would...
One thing that that is not yet that often mentioned is the cocktail effect where low exposure to known problematic chemicals causes combined effects greater than their individual exposures would indicate.
This is something that is obviously pretty hard to study, and also something that has been left in the shadow due to the design of most studies where they try to single out the substance that is under study as possible.
This is why, IMO, it is very wise to do your best to avoid as many known problematic substances as possible. It is better to be safe than sorry.
Yvette d’Entremont, aka SciBabe, has written a rebuttal entitled: Diet Coke is not killing you: It also won’t make you gain weight or cause depression. I'll continue to enjoy an occasional Diet...
All kidding aside, I am also in the diet coke camp. No hate for those who like coke zero, but as someone who doesn't have much of a sweet tooth (I prefer tart, bitter, and savory flavors over pure...
All kidding aside, I am also in the diet coke camp. No hate for those who like coke zero, but as someone who doesn't have much of a sweet tooth (I prefer tart, bitter, and savory flavors over pure sweetness as I age) coke zero is same sweet level as regular coke, which is too much for me. Plus I kinda like that chemically taste, because I'm a slut like that.
Full title from the link is "Aspartame sweetener used in Diet Coke a possible carcinogen, WHO’s cancer research agency to say - sources"
I wouldn't normally post rumours and speculation but i) this is from Reuters and ii) it's important to get the messaging about IARC right, because previous experience has shown that people simply don't understand the difference between "this thing definitely causes cancer" and "this thing does not cause very much cancer". (See the confusion about processed red meat as an example of this). There will be a lot of confusing reporting (even from journos trying to accurately communicate the information) and there will be a lot of misinformation - both from the food industry and from anti-artificial sweetener "health bloggers".
IARC has four categories about the strength, the quality, of evidence.
Group 2B is pretty weak, and I'd be keen to see what the dose is, and whether it's in humans or mice.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/electromagnetic-fields/glossary/ghi/iarc-classification.htm
Group 2 means this:
Group 2A means this
Group 2B means this
This is some great nuance to add and I love that this is the top comment.
This reminds me of the recent uproar in my country when our Health body changed its recommendation to only having two alcoholic drinks per week to avoid adverse health risks and people lost their shit because no one reads full articles or bothers to understand probabilities.
Made for a great YouTube video but also reinforced to me that even when you give most people useful information they don't know what to do with it. Really underscored the importance for me of compotent news agencies being able to provide nuance and how much that is missing in today's world.
I’ll add to this that public health messaging doesn’t directly correlate to the exact science behind the recommendations. They also have to consider how people will receive the information and how they’ll follow it. As an example if the studies recommend that 6 fruit and veg a day can meet nutritional needs, one country might recommend eating 5 fruit and vegetables a day, because they’ve determined that people will not be overwhelmed by this low ish number and will meet or exceed it; another country will recommend 8, because for their population it’s determined that a higher number makes people strive to reach it and even if they don’t get the full 8 they’ve probably hit 5 or 6 which is sufficient. On the other hand with drinks, some populations will always drink more than recommended, so a lower number means that although they’re still going over they’re (hopefully) still drinking less than before.
I know this is true but I hate it. It just erodes public trust in institutions when it they play games like this. The public is not too stupid to make our own decisions. Just tell us the real numbers and go away.
The flip side is that having so many of these labels, let alone with differences between the source as well as other jurisdictions, means people seeing them are eventually likely to ignore all of them. Stuff like “California says everything causes cancer. People seem fine. these labels are all exaggerated.”
That's interesting! Did not know these classifications were broken down like this, from reading previous media coverage on similar matters I thought it was a single list with a binary classification. This makes a lot more sense!
I once heard that nearly everything you could ingest increases your risk of cancer to some extent except maybe water, because metabolism itself produces "free radicals" which can damage cells in ways which very rarely make them cancerous. The important metric how much the risk is increased: some compounds (like benzene and radioactive particles) basically guarantee that you'll get cancer, some (like particles from smoking) don't guarantee but raise your risk significantly.
Even in the case of benzene and radioactive particles, it's still a probability game and the dose matters. For example, pretty much everyone is constantly exposed to small amounts of benzene from car exhaust and other sources, but at a low enough level that most of us will not get benzene-related cancers in our lifetimes.
Yes, and also why "excess consumption of red meat" probably does cause cancer to be more likely, it definitely correlates.
It’s been many years since I looked at this but I remember aspartame coming up as a discussion in my toxicology course in grad school. There was a study at some point where they were able to give rats bladder cancer by feeding them an absurd amount of it - translating to like, gallons of diet soda a day in humans - but at least then not much in the way of human evidence.
If it ends up in 2b, well, that’s fine. We can file it away with all the other random stuff in 2b that doesn’t impact the majority of people.
I don’t have anything against the IARC lists, I just don’t think they were intended for laymen audiences or for reporters to run around telling everyone xyz is the new carcinogen to be afraid of.
I have something against IARC lists. “We failed to prove a negative, so we’re going to say it’s a positive” is extremely unscientific. And there is no reasonable way to interpret “possibly” than “we have some reason to think it might be”. So putting compounds we have minimal reason to think might be carcinogenic but just haven’t proven for sure in a category labeled “possibly” is disingenuous. Furthermore their examples of compounds that are “possibly” carcinogenic are styrene and gasoline, which are indeed not carcinogenic but ARE very toxic. Since the public understandably doesn’t have a great handle on the difference, I feel these examples are intentionally misleading. I feel they should use “common essential oils and inhalation of metal oxides” as a better example.
Honestly, when it comes to determining whether something is going to cause lasting harm to a swath of the population, I'd prefer that they be more cautious than needed.
All bread when baked contains acrylamide which is toxic and a known carcinogen. Toasting any bread increased the carcinogen. Very few people are going to believe scientists if they are told that all bread is deadly, or that toast is deadly. Unless I'm just getting old and jaded, that is.
Something like the level of acrylamide in a slice of toast should maybe be the baseline of "acceptable risk" for most consumers. Avoiding all carcinogens is next to impossible it seems, making that the goal is going to risk consumers getting fatigue and not being willing to avoid any carcinogens.
Ah yes, big corporations are always looking out for us consumers, how dare the science people mislead us.
That’s an absurd amount of soda to drink daily
I started drinking coke zero to help me kick beer, it used to be coke stevia then they cancelled it at the beginning of the pandemic unfortunately, and I can probably drink that much in a day. Not saying that's good, but compared to the beer it's better.
Way to go man. Yes infinitely better.
Thanks! Honestly now that I’m thinking about it I should probably switch to flavoured water so I still get the can experience but without the aspartame. I just really wish coke stevia comes back :(
Hopefully it gets easier for you. I quit soda and milk except for an occasional treat. Lost a lot of weight fast
Yeah as I said to nacho man I should probably switch to flavoured water, but the fact that I’m not drinking that much beer anymore is a good start
Yes, but also the "depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage" is doing some heavy lifting. 12 cans of soda is about 6 liters, and that's not a ludicrous amount of liquid to drink in a day. At that point, if someone is drinking diet soda for hydration getting over that line is fairly easy.
Edit: Also, without detail regarding can size, it's even less useful.
If you're drinking diet soda for hydration then you have bigger problems than worrying about the possible carcinogens in the far future.
Yes, but you know what I mean? There are people who just don't drink water. All their hydration comes from other sources. They're then drinking soda or milk or juice. I'm not saying it's healthy, just that it's a thing that happens.
I used to know a person like this as a kid, no idea what happened to them but I can't imagine living like that. I mean, you either grow out of it or you're going to die of diabetes or something else.
Kidney stones
So many kidney stones. I know someone who doesn't drink water, only diet soda or Crystal Light lemonade. Neither of those is going to give you diabetes, but he has so damn many kidney stones.
Twelve cans is 4.26L but that does seem like way too much of a daily intake of anything. I think that's closer to the daily fluid intake overall but that includes water, other beverages, and food.
Wait, how big are cans? Because here they are 0.33L which would make 12 cans 3.96L
They're 355mL here.
And how big are those absurdly big bucket sized drinks some fast food places offer?! I’m sure they are outliers, but I bet there are people who drink a few of those in a day
6 liters of anything seems (to me) like a ludicrous amount to drink in one day. I highly doubt I've ever drunk that much of anything in one day in my entire life. Maybe someone running a marathon or biking in the Tour de France would drink that much? Idk, it just sounds ludicrous to me, anyhow
I easily surpass that in water even on rest days. That's like 11 refills of my normal water bottle.
Same. I drink maybe 2-3 L of water and another 1-1.5L of tea in a typical day.
Yeah I drink an absurd amount of soda (I'm pretty sure most people who care about eating healthy would be aghast at how much I drink) and I don't even drink that much.
Yes, it's a lot of soda.
In the UK one can of soda is about 330 ml.
(I show my working so that people can easily see if I make a mistake. I find converting to and from US customary units a bit tricky.)
12 * 330 is 3960, or roughly 4 litres.
36 * 330 is 11880 or roughly 11 litres.
4 litres in fluid ounces is, er, either 135 fluid ounces (Google's calculator) or 155 fluid ounces (if I multiply 4 by 33.81 (how many US fluid ounces per litre)).
An original 7-11 Big Gulp is 32 fluid ounces, but they also do much bigger sizes too:
There's a couple of things in here from a public health perspective that are worrying.
It's really cheap.
It's really easy to get.
It was being sold with a "freedom" tag, and that's a powerful thing for lots of people. Even in the UK we have a lot of "why is the government telling me to drink less sugar? Why are they getting involved?" and the freedom thing is part of that.
When I look at the sizing I think they're absurdly large, but then I look at common UK bottle sizes and they're comparable. I think the difference to me is the expectation of "this is something you'll drink in one day" vs "this is something you'll drink over several days", and now I look at that I know I'm wrong.
Previous discussions can also be found here.
Ah, thank you for that link, I don't know how I missed it.
One thing that that is not yet that often mentioned is the cocktail effect where low exposure to known problematic chemicals causes combined effects greater than their individual exposures would indicate.
This is something that is obviously pretty hard to study, and also something that has been left in the shadow due to the design of most studies where they try to single out the substance that is under study as possible.
This is why, IMO, it is very wise to do your best to avoid as many known problematic substances as possible. It is better to be safe than sorry.
Yvette d’Entremont, aka SciBabe, has written a rebuttal entitled: Diet Coke is not killing you: It also won’t make you gain weight or cause depression.
I'll continue to enjoy an occasional Diet Coke or three. :-)
All kidding aside, I am also in the diet coke camp. No hate for those who like coke zero, but as someone who doesn't have much of a sweet tooth (I prefer tart, bitter, and savory flavors over pure sweetness as I age) coke zero is same sweet level as regular coke, which is too much for me. Plus I kinda like that chemically taste, because I'm a slut like that.
I used to drink up to 6 litres per day but I'm now down to about 1 litre per week. ;-)
Oh, it's the season for demonizing aspartame again? Bit late this year :p