DddPhoto by Michal Matlon on Unsplash
IS ONE OF THE WORLD’S MOST POPULAR SWEETENERS a potential cancer-causing agent? According to a new report from the World Health Organization (WHO), aspartame is a threat. Today, we explore whether aspartame is sweet or sinister, unveiling the real story of its relationship to cancer.
This essay will comprehensively analyze the available scientific evidence surrounding this topic.
By examining both sides of the argument and evaluating relevant studies, we can better understand the relationship between aspartame and cancer.
First, a bit about aspartame. The substance is all around us. Aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener commonly used as a sugar substitute in various food and beverage products.
It comprises two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and a methyl ester.
Since its approval by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), aspartame has undergone rigorous testing to assess its safety for human consumption.
The safety of the popular artificial sweetener has long been debated.
Some argue that aspartame is carcinogenic; it causes cancer. Others have offered concerns about the following:
A 2017 study in Nutritional Neuroscience cautioned that “aspartame consumption needs to be approached with caution due to the possible effects on neurobehavioral health.”
Concerns about the potential cancer-causing effects of aspartame arose shortly after its introduction.
These concerns were fueled by anecdotal reports and animal studies that suggested a possible link between aspartame consumption and cancer development.
However, it is important to note that such studies often involved extremely high doses.
Several large-scale human studies have been conducted to address aspartame and cancer concerns.
A comprehensive review published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology analyzed 500 scientific studies and concluded that aspartame is not associated with increased cancer risk.
More evidence that aspartame does not cause cancer comes from a cohort study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute involving over 500,000 participants.
The study found no significant association between aspartame consumption and the risk of various cancers.
Finally, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducted a comprehensive risk assessment and concluded that no consistent evidence supports an association between aspartame and cancer.
In July 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — a branch of the World Health Organization — announced it had designated aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic [cancer-causing] to humans.”
As a cancer doctor, I received numerous inquiries about the new report. Fortunately, there is little about which to be concerned.
Here’s some context: In reviewing chemicals and other exposures suspected of having cancer-causing effects, the IARC evaluates the strength of scientific evidence and then classifies the agent in question as:
The World Health Organization placed aspartame in the second-to-lowest level of “possibly carcinogenic.” WHO admits that there is only limited evidence but suggests additional research.
Much of the concern regarding the aspartame: cancer connection is based on studies in rodents.
These investigations involved aspartame doses exceeding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s acceptable daily limit for humans of 50 milligrams per kilogram body weight.
To get the amount causing cancer in rodents, someone weighing 175 pounds must consume twenty 12-ounce cans of diet soda daily.
Furthermore, the classification of “possibly carcinogenic” does not account for the doses at which the cancer would occur or the risk level.
If aspartame causes cancer in one in 10 (or 100) million people, it could fall into this category.
Dr. Peter Attia points out that there is no category for “unlikely to be carcinogenic.”
Dr. Attia continues, noting that the IARC evidence comes from that “seemingly inexhaustible fountain of bad science known as nutritional epidemiology.”
Fortunately, most evidence points to no association between aspartame and cancer.
I prefer to avoid artificial sweeteners, so I am not cheerleading for their use. I suspect the new headlines screaming “Aspartame Linked to Cancer” are sounding a false alarm. While artificial sweeteners may be linked to cancer, we have no high-level evidence to sound the alarm.
I worry more about the effects of artificial sweeteners such as aspartame on our metabolic health.
In May 2023, the World Health Organization advised people not to consume non-sugar sweeteners (including aspartame) for weight loss.
The organization based its recommendation on a systematic review of the most current scientific evidence, which suggests that consumption of non-sugar sweeteners is associated with increased risks of the following:
Still, individuals with phenylketonuria, a rare genetic disorder, should avoid aspartame due to the presence of phenylalanine.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services observes that certain people with the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), those with advanced liver disease, and pregnant women with hyperphenylalaninemia (high levels of phenylalanine in the blood) have a problem with aspartame.
They do not effectively break down the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame’s components. High levels of this amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage.
Overall, aspartame remains an approved and safe artificial sweetener for most people.
From the start, G.D. Searle (later Monsanto and the NutraSweet Company) deployed aggressive public relations tactics to market aspartame as a safe product.
In October 1987, Gregory Gordon reported in UPI:
“The NutraSweet Co. also has paid up to $3 million a year for a 100-person public relations effort by the Chicago offices of Burson Marsteller. Burson Marsteller has hired numerous scientists and physicians, often at $1,000 a day, to defend the sweetener in media interviews and other public forums.”
The folks at the U.S. Right to Know organization add this disturbing coda:
Moreover, beverage companies such as Coca-Cola allegedly pay third-party messengers, including scientists and doctors, to promote their products and shift the blame when science ties them to serious health problems.
Eliran Malki and Belong.Life Help People Navigate Cancer Care with an On-Demand AI Coach with…
Health system CFOs across the country face a unique quandary. Operating margins remain low, staffing…
The Perfect Storm: Challenges Driving Consumer Health Demand in APAC
The digital health sector has its ups and downs! Some judge its success by investment…
A growing body of evidence suggests that the fight against dementia should begin earlier, before…
AI has impacted the lives of everyone around the globe, but we can’t trust its…
This website uses cookies. Your continued use of the site is subject to the acceptance of these cookies. Please refer to our Privacy Policy for more information.
Read More