Yeah, that's my point. It's half-baked. "It possibly causes cancer" tells me that they don't know, and haven't figured it out. The people who figured it out with saccharine actually did science and figured out how much for how long, holding everything else constant, shows a statistically significant increase in rates of cancer in the subjects.
So we get an announcement that they're going to make an announcement that they have a hunch, and that's just so totally stupid and senseless. They're just throwing rocks at ducks on the pond to rile them up, for some reason. Which probably has something to do with somebody at the WHO's personal convictions or stock portfolio, otherwise there's no point.
I feel similarly about GMO labelling laws that just require that its presence in foods be disclosed, but not an explanation of why it's significant. A crop that's been altered to be able to grow in roundup and may contain unhealthy levels of it is a hell of a lot different than a crop that's been altered to contain more vitamins, but all we get is a label that for all practical purposes just alarms people with no capacity for critical thought into thinking it's poisonous.