In 2016, I made the decision to give up Diet Coke, an adjustment that was no small feat for me. Growing up in suburban Atlanta, where the Coca-Cola Company’s global headquarters is located, Diet Coke had always been a staple in my home. In high school, I would start my mornings with a can and always made sure to have quarters on hand for vending machine purchases. Even when I moved into my college dorm, stocking my mini fridge with cans of Diet Coke was a top priority. Years later, my then-boyfriend humorously gifted me two 12-packs of Diet Coke for Christmas. From the outside, it seemed like quitting would be a difficult task. However, to my surprise, it turned out to be easier than I had anticipated.
I had heard stories of individuals who experienced improved health after cutting out diet drinks from their lives, including better sleep, clearer skin, and increased energy. I was also aware of the concerns surrounding artificial sweeteners. Despite this knowledge, I had remained loyal to my Diet Cokes. It wasn’t until I tried unsweetened seltzer at a friend’s apartment that I realized what I truly enjoyed about Diet Coke was its coldness and fizz. This realization prompted me to make the switch to seltzer on the spot. I was prepared to join the ranks of the converted and reap the health benefits that surely awaited me as a result of my good behavior.
However, those health benefits never materialized. Seven years later, I can confidently say that I don’t feel any better than I did when I was drinking four or five cans of Diet Coke a day. Nevertheless, I continue to stick to seltzer, hoping that maybe there are hidden benefits that I am unaware of. Diet Coke has mostly faded from my memory, but it hasn’t been the miracle elixir that I had believed it to be. Apart from the caffeine, it appears to have had little impact on my overall well-being.
Yesterday, Reuters reported that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is set to declare aspartame, the sweetener used in Diet Coke and other no-calorie sodas, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” In theory, this announcement should have validated my decision to quit Diet Coke. While I may not feel any better now, I can take comfort in the knowledge that years from now, I may be better off. Instead, I felt a sense of annoyance. Over the years, a multitude of foods and behaviors have become the targets of vague and ever-changing health warnings. Whether it’s fake sweeteners, real sugar, wine, butter, milk, or any number of other things, it seems that there is always something new to feel guilty about.
It is important to examine what we actually know or suspect about the relationship between diet sodas and our health. Most of the research in this area is conducted through observational studies, where scientists track consumption and health outcomes to identify trends and commonalities. While these studies cannot establish causation, they can provide valuable insight and warrant further investigation. Regular and sustained consumption of diet soda has been linked to weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, and an increased risk of stroke, among other concerns. These findings are understandably alarming for those who prioritize their health. However, it’s important to note that there are confounding factors that complicate our understanding of the impact of diet soda. For years, advertisements encouraged individuals with health concerns to switch to diet drinks, resulting in many people still making this substitution to adhere to low-carb diets or manage their blood sugar levels. As a result, there is limited evidence to suggest that diet soda is solely responsible for these health issues. Health is a multifactorial phenomenon, and while many experts recommend limiting diet soda consumption as a precautionary measure, it is not the sole determinant of our well-being.
A representative for the IARC could not confirm or deny the pending announcement regarding aspartame’s carcinogenic potential. However, let’s assume that Reuters’ report is accurate and the sweetener will be classified as “possibly carcinogenic.” To the average person, these words, particularly when coming from a reputable health organization, may imply a significant suspicion of danger. Although the evidence may not be conclusive, one may believe that there is enough reason to be alarmed and share this information with the general public.
However, as my colleague Ed Yong explained in a piece back in 2015, when the IARC made a similar announcement about the potential carcinogenicity of meat, the classification does not imply what it may seem initially. The IARC categorizes risks into four groups: carcinogenic (Group 1), probably carcinogenic (Group 2A), possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B), and unclassified (Group 3). These categories do not signify the degree of risk involved, but rather describe the level of certainty the agency has for any potential increased risk. The 2B category, which is where aspartame may soon be classified, does not definitively declare that the substance is carcinogenic. Rather, it serves as a catch-all category for risks that the IARC could neither confirm nor fully discount as carcinogenic. Essentially, it is a broad category that encompasses many factors and substances, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
These categorizations of carcinogenicity are just one example of how health information can be conveyed in ways that are ultimately unhelpful, despite good intentions. Earlier this year, the WHO issued a warning against the use of artificial sweeteners, which may sound alarming at first. However, the warning was primarily concerned with the limited evidence supporting the efficacy of these sweeteners for weight loss, rather than any new evidence suggesting harm. While the warning did mention the potential links between long-term use of artificial sweeteners and increased risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, and premature death, the WHO acknowledged that these correlations were not definitive evidence but rather associations. In essence, the warning was not about any specific chemical but about the concept of relying on artificial sweeteners for long-term weight control.
Given the ambiguous nature of these warnings and the confusing information presented to the general public, it is no wonder that people may feel overwhelmed and unsure of how to interpret and respond to actual risks. The media plays a crucial role in disseminating this information, and all too often, sensationalized stories can exaggerate the findings or misrepresent the research. In some cases, the research itself may be flawed or inconclusive, rendering it useless for making informed decisions.
When we look at these issues as a whole, it becomes clear that there is a real potential for people to become fatigued by the constant barrage of health warnings or even become nihilistic in their approach to health. The lack of proposed solutions and the finger-wagging only exacerbate the problem, leaving individuals without practical guidance on how to navigate the ever-changing landscape of dietary recommendations.
In conclusion, it is essential to critically examine health information, consider the nuances, and learn to distinguish between alarmist claims and legitimate concerns. While there may be risks associated with certain substances or behaviors, it is crucial to base our decisions on evidence-based research and consult with trusted healthcare professionals. By adopting a nuanced and balanced approach to our health, we can make informed choices without succumbing to fear or confusion.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
