ASPARTAME: THE CANCER SCARE!

The growing tribe of diabetics across the globe are in for a major disappointment. Aspartame, one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners worldwide and popular amongst those with a sweet tooth, could soon figure on the list of ‘forbidden fruits.’

This non-nutritive sweetener, founded by an American chemist James Schalatter in 1965 (and approved by the US FDA in 1974), has since been an ingredient of American essentials like chewing gum and breakfast cereal. Possessing a sweetness potency 200 times that of traditional sugar, it enables consumers to relish the sugary taste they desire without the associated calorie count. It can be found in thousands of products, from diet sodas to low-calorie desserts, and is marketed as a healthier substitute for those aiming to cut down on sugar intake.

However, despite the numerous benefits it brings, the debate about aspartame’s safety has long been contentious. Since its approval by the FDA, there have been ongoing concerns about potential health effects. Now, this contention looks set to reach new heights with the impending decision to label it as a potential carcinogen to humans.

HOW REAL IS THE DANGER?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer

The actual risk level associated with a substance depends on numerous factors, including the amount of the substance consumed, the duration of exposure, and individual health conditions.

(IARC), a specialised cancer research division of the World Health Organization (WHO), has purportedly been analysing around 1,300 studies exploring the link between aspartame and cancer. The “possibly carcinogenic” classification that the agency employs is based on evidence that is considered “limited,” sourced from human or animal data.

This category also houses a variety of other substances, including diesel fuel, aloe vera, Asian pickled vegetables, and a collection of diverse chemical substances. While seeming damning at first glance, this classification is nuanced and often misunderstood. As Professor Kevin McConway of the Open University elucidates, the IARC’s categorisations speak to the strength of the available evidence, not the actual risk a substance poses to your health.

This clarification is crucial for understanding the classification process and mitigating potential alarms. The science behind the alleged aspartame-cancer link is complex. A study in the early 2000s provided preliminary evidence of a connection, noting a potential link between aspartame and cancer in rat and mouse models. However, this study’s conclusions were met with criticism, and subsequent animal studies have not consistently replicated these findings.

The second assessment was released on July 13th by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), a collaboration between the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

This evaluation considered all possible health hazards associated with aspartame consumption as a food and drink additive, not solely its potential to cause cancer.

The committee reaffirmed the pre-existing ‘acceptable daily intake’ limits ranging from zero to 40 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight. Therefore, an individual weighing 154 pounds, or 70 kilograms, would have a daily limit of 2,800 milligrams of this sweetener.

Given that a can of diet soda sweetened with aspartame contains about 200 to 300 milligrams of the substance, most people could safely consume nine to 14 cans per day, staying within the recommended intake.

A Contrary View

Research endeavours have expanded in recent years, with larger population studies being carried out. For instance, a study conducted last year involving 105,000 participants found a correlation between the consumption of high levels of sweeteners, including aspartame, and increased cancer risk. However, this data should be interpreted with caution, as many differences exist in the health behaviours and lifestyles between the groups under comparison, possibly influencing the results.

Amidst this controversy, it’s vital to remember that aspartame has received approval from over 90 food safety agencies across the globe, signalling its overall safety for the general population. These affirmations are built on an extensive body of research into aspartame and its health impacts. However, a universally accepted caveat is that people with a rare inherited condition known as phenylketonuria (PKU) should avoid aspartame, as they cannot metabolise one of its components.

SO, WHAT IS THE PROGNOSIS?

In anticipation of the IARC’s forthcoming declaration, several public health authorities and scientific committees are expected to evaluate and present their assessments of aspartame’s safety. The beverage industry has expressed concerns about this new classification, worrying that it could lead to a misunderstanding among consumers and a subsequent increase in sugar consumption as they shun low and no-sugar alternatives.

As the dialogue surrounding aspartame’s safety and its potential carcinogenic properties continues to evolve, it is imperative that consumers understand what these classifications actually mean. Being categorised as “possibly carcinogenic” doesn’t equate to a substantial health risk.

The actual risk level associated with a substance depends on numerous factors, including the amount of the substance consumed, the duration of exposure, and individual health conditions. Until further evidence is available, consumers should rely on personalised dietary advice from healthcare professionals to inform their decisions about aspartame consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply. FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Public health authorities should be “deeply concerned” by the “leaked opinion” and also warned it “could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar, rather than choosing safe no-and low-sugar options”.

The body would “closely study” the reports, but “our view is that the safety of this sweetener has been evaluated by various scientific committees, and it is considered safe at currently permitted use levels”.

Rum Mumford, Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, UK’s Food Standards Agency