I am Los Angeles personal injury attorney Michael Ehline. I am also a bodybuilder and amateur nutritionist. Below, I am going to discuss more what I suspected all along, that lab-created, nonnutritive sweeteners are bad for you! Americans always try to find quick solutions to control or lose excess body weight. Artificial sweeteners like Sodium Saccharine, Aspartame, and Splenda have long been the bane of fitness gurus and natural health advocates.

Your doctor may even recommend these to reduce the risk of diabetes, even though it may cause human cancer. We know that dogs, ants, and even cockroaches dislike Aspartame besides containing probable human carcinogens. Many argue that the American Cancer Society and government agencies are less scientific and more profit-oriented on the side of beverage makers. Many consumers have argued for years that the FDA and others needlessly mislead consumers about different substances in our foods and drinks.

Many food additive chemicals the FDA lets into our food are banned by scientific researchers for human consumption in Europe. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO)) will now classify Aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” for the first time. This artificial sweetener has been used in popular products such as Coca-Cola diet sodas (and other aspartame-containing beverages) and Mars’ Extra chewing gum since the 1980s.

What are Some Products Containing Aspartame?

Here are some store names commonly containing aspartame sweeteners:

1. Equal
2. NutraSweet (despite the fact there is no nutrition)
3. Sweet’N Low
4. Diet Coke (or any other diet soda brand)
5. Crystal Light
6. Trident gum (or other sugar-free gum brands)
7. Sugar-free Jello or pudding
8. Sugar-free candies or mints (various brands)
9. Sugar-free yogurt or ice cream (various brands)
10. Sugar-free protein bars or meal replacement shakes (various brands.).

This is not an exhaustive list. Also, aspartame-containing products can vary across different products and brands. We encourage consumers to check the ingredient list or consult the product packaging for more specific information.

The 2019 IARC Commission

In 2019, an advisory group comprising 29 scientists from 18 countries was highly prioritized for reviewing Aspartame by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program. This program aims to evaluate the carcinogenicity of various substances and agents through a systematic and comprehensive assessment of available scientific evidence. The priority designation indicates that Aspartame underwent a thorough review by the IARC Monographs program between 2020 and 2024 to determine its potential carcinogenicity in humans.

The evaluation process involves critically analyzing and integrating relevant studies and data to reach a scientifically informed conclusion about the substance’s association with cancer. They say there is strong evidence that high doses of Aspartame are unnecessary to cause certain cancers.

It appears that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer both used evidence-based approaches. But their report on carcinogens seems to differ over “human carcinogens” in most cases, including this reported controversy. Let’s go over the differences and similarities of the epidemiologic studies and findings of this chemical containing suspected carcinogens and whether the European Union epidemiologic studies should be re-evaluated.

First Observational Human Study on Aspartame?

This announcement comes in light of a first-of-its-kind observational study conducted in France, which included 100,000 adults and revealed a higher cancer risk among individuals who consumed more significant amounts of artificial sweeteners, including Aspartame. Finally, this artificial sweetener has been declared a possible potential carcinogen causing cancer among humans by the World Health Organization. AS REFERENCED IN THIS HEALTH STUDY, the WHO’s classification of Aspartame as a possible carcinogen indicates its potential role as a slightly higher cancer risk.

Although prior studies had limited evidence, there appears to be solid or sufficient evidence that high-intensity sweeteners known as Aspartame, like Diet Coke, are deadly, even at lower doses. For now, most studies favor the food sellers, and any risks of certain kinds of cancer appear to be outweighed by these low-sugar options in the U.S. anyways.

What Does the National Cancer Institute Say?

Before this European finding, I recently read “Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer,” as originally published by the National Cancer Institute. The NCI apparently disagree with IARC and WHO, asserting that THEIR available studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or harm in humans. So the issue seems to be the acceptable daily intake in humans instead of animal studies.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also asserts that Aspartame is safe for the general population, provided it is produced following good manufacturing practices and used within approved conditions of use. Their conclusion is based on their research evaluations, often conducted on behalf of the food industry, assessing the safety of Aspartame and other food additives permitted as “artificial sweeteners.” (Source – FDA.)

What About the European Food Safety Authority?

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent agency of the European Union responsible for assessing and communicating risks associated with the food chain. It provides scientific advice and recommendations to ensure food safety and protect public health.

The EFSA evaluates a wide range of topics related to food, including additives, contaminants, genetically modified organisms, and pesticide residues. Its assessments are based on rigorous scientific methodologies and aim to inform policymakers, consumers, and stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding food safety in the European Union.

Cancer Risk With Human Carcinogens?

There is zero nutrition in these chemical mixtures. Aspartame, which is also used in some Snapple drinks, will be listed in July as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” for the first time by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research arm, the Reuters report said. The move is likely to pit the food industry against regulators. However, the FDA heads, many of whom work on pay later schemes in the industry, have for decades defended non-nutritive sweeteners. It appears the FDA and their food and beverage maker allies are already trying to minimize the severity of the European environmental health report.

What are Some Examples of Carcinogens?

Many substances and factors have been identified as definitive, probable, or possible human carcinogens. These include various chemicals, environmental pollutants, lifestyle factors, and exposures. It’s important to note that the classification of a substance as a carcinogen does not imply that exposure to it will always cause cancer but rather that there is scientific evidence suggesting a potential association with cancer development. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a specialized agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), is responsible for evaluating the carcinogenicity of substances, including those contained in low-calorie sweeteners.

Examples of substances and factors that have been classified as carcinogens by the IARC include:

1. Tobacco smoke, including both active and passive smoking
2. Asbestos, a mineral fiber commonly used in construction materials
3. Benzene, a chemical found in gasoline, emissions from industrial processes that can lead to occupational exposure to oxidized bitumens and other emissions, and even tobacco smoke
4. Formaldehyde is a chemical used in various products, including building materials and household products
5. Arsenic, a naturally occurring element present in certain minerals and used in various industrial applications
6. Ultraviolet (U.V.) radiation from sunlight and tanning beds (known to cause skin cancer.)
7. Certain types of ionizing radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays
8. Alcohol consumption
9. Processed meat is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

These are just a few examples, and the list of identified carcinogens continues to evolve as new research emerges with humans instead of lab animals. It’s important to note that the classification of a substance as a carcinogen does not indicate its risk level. The level of risk depends on various factors, including the intensity and duration of exposure, individual susceptibility, and other contextual factors.

Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk

Aspartame, when metabolized by the body (heated in your body), can undergo a process called methanol metabolism, which involves the breakdown of Aspartame into its constituent components. One of these components is methanol, a small amount of which is released upon the digestion of Aspartame. In the human body, methanol can be further metabolized into formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance in the body found in various foods and beverages.

The FDA and manufacturers assert that the conversion of methanol to formaldehyde from aspartame consumptiAspartamesidered to be within safe limits and does not pose a significant health risk. The FDA says the human body has natural mechanisms to process and eliminate formaldehyde, and the levels produced from the breakdown of aspartaAspartamenerally well-tolerated.

Can the Body Make Formaldehyde Without Aspartame?

The FDA points out that formaldehyde produced from aspartame metabolism is relatively tiny compared to the amounts produced from other dietary sources or even from endogenous metabolic processes in the body. The safety of aspartame artificial sweeteners has been extensively evaluated by regulatory agencies worldwide, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it is considered safe for consumption when used within approved levels.

Other Concerns Raised by IARC

The IARC ruling, finalized earlier this month after meeting the group’s external experts, was intended to assess whether something is a potential hazard based on all the published evidence. However, it does not consider how much of a product a person can safely consume. This guidance for individuals originates from a distinct expert committee on food additives called JECFA (the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives), which is separate from the WHO. The report also incorporates findings from national regulatory bodies. Nevertheless, when the IARC issues comparable rulings for various substances, it often triggers consumer apprehensions and legal actions and prompts manufacturers to reformulate their products with alternative ingredients. Consequently, the IARC’s assessments have faced criticism for potentially confusing the general public.

The WHO Committee on Additives, JECFA, is currently reviewing the use of aspartame. The meeting commenced at the end of June, and its findings are scheduled to be announced on the same day as the public decision of the IARC, which is on July 14. Since 1981, JECFA has recommended consuming aspartame within the established daily limits. For instance, an adult weighing 60 kg (132 pounds) would need to consume between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda per day, depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage, to potentially be at risk. This viewpoint has been widely endorsed by national regulatory bodies, including those in the United States and Europe.

An IARC spokesperson said the IARC and JECFA committees’ findings had been confidential until July. They added they were “complementary,” with IARC’s conclusion representing “the first fundamental step to understand carcinogenicity.” The additives committee “conducts risk assessment, and that determines the probability of a specific type of harm (e.g., cancer) that might occur under certain conditions and “levels of exposure.”

Food Industry v Regulators

The IARC’s rulings can have a considerable impact. In 2015, its committee concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” Years later, even as other bodies like the EFSA contested this assessment, companies still felt the decision’s effects. Germany’s Bayer 2021 lost its third appeal against U.S. court verdicts that awarded damages to customers blaming their cancers on using its glyphosate-based weed killers.

The IARC’s decisions have been criticized for being alarmist over hard-to-avoid substances or situations. It has previously been stated that working overnight and consuming red meat is in the “probably cancer-causing” class. It has also been said using mobile phones is “possibly cancer-causing,” similar to Aspartame. The FDA notes that the IRC is not a food safety body.

The FDA thinks this review of aspartame is not scientifically comprehensive. Critics say it is based heavily on “discredited research.” The secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA)) is not happy. The ISA body includes Mars Wrigley, a Coca-Cola unit. The secretary-general has “serious concerns with the IARC review, which may mislead consumers.”

French Study

Aspartame has undergone extensive studies over the years. A recent observational study in France involving 100,000 adults found that individuals who consumed more significant quantities of artificial sweeteners (sweetness chemicals), including aspartame, exhibited a slightly higher risk of cancer. It’s important to note that this study was observational in nature, meaning it can only establish a correlation and not a direct cause-effect relationship. Further research and studies on people who eat or drink these blended recipes are needed better to understand aspartame’s potential impact on cancer risk.

Italian Study

The Ramazzini Institute in Italy conducted a study in the early 2000s which suggested a link between aspartame and certain cancers in mice and rats. However, it should be noted that the first study could not establish a definitive cause-effect relationship between aspartame and increased cancer risk. The methodology of the second study has been questioned, including by the EFSA, which conducted its own assessment.

Aspartame has been authorized by regulatory bodies worldwide after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence, and significant food and beverage companies have defended its use for many years. The IARC’s decision to list aspartame as a possible carcinogen encourages further research to help draw more definitive conclusions for agencies, consumers, and manufacturers.

This development is likely to spark renewed debates on the role of the IARC and the overall safety of sweeteners. Recently, the WHO published guidelines advising against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control, leading to discussions within the food industry, arguing that such sweeteners can benefit individuals looking to reduce their sugar intake.

Conclusion

Did we raise an eyebrow? Knowing what goes in your body should be a high priority to avoid disease exposure. We just discussed Aspartame, carcinogens, and cancer associated with this non-nutritive sweetener. This study and its findings have created a bad environment for those who manufacture and sell sweet chemicals. The International Council of Beverages Associations’ executive director Kate Loatman thinks we should be “deeply concerned” and warned it “could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no- and low-sugar options,” without nutrient sources added. She likely fears false reports of cancer, lymphomas, or carcinogenesis in humans could harm her industry sales goals.

Her side argues that higher consumption of aspartame-containing beverages has not been associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer in following studies commissioned by her side after much analysis by the world’s top food and beverage-employed scientists. As the debate continues, fitness types will likely continue not using artificial sweeteners, and others probably won’t care or call for more regulation of food and medicine. Below are some references for members of the public and scientific communities who exposed health risks to men and women, whether they consumed larger amounts or not. If you need to speak with a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, call (213) 596-9642. We are ready to help people 24/7, 365 per year! You can also leave your follow up comments here.

Citations:

• Lim U, Subar AF, Mouw T, et al. Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain malignancies. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2006; 15(9):1654–1659. [PubMed Abstract]
• National Cancer Institute. (n.d.). Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer Risk: Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet
• Pathology working group Chairperson’s report: lifetime study in rats conducted by the Ramazzini Foundation. Research Triangle Park: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; 2004. Google Scholar EFSA (EFSA).
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Website: www.epa.gov
• Integrated Risk Information System: www.epa.gov/iris
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Website: www.fda.gov
• National Cancer Institute Website: www.cancer.gov
• Cancer Causes and Risk Factors: www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes