Next month, a prominent international health body is expected to designate one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners, aspartame, to be potentially carcinogenic.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organisation (WHO), will list aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” for the first time in the month of July. Aspartame is an ingredient used in products like diet colas, chewing gums, and snapple drinks.
The IARC decision, which was made earlier this month following a meeting of the group’s outside specialists, aims to determine whether or not aspartame poses a risk based on all available published information.
It does not consider the maximum amount of a product that a person can safely ingest. Along with decisions made by national regulators, this advice for individuals is provided by a different expert committee of the WHO, JECFA (the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives) which focuses on food additives.
Similar IARC decisions for various chemicals in the past have sparked lawsuits, encouraged producers to rework formulations, and encouraged consumers to seek alternatives. This has given rise to complaints that the public may find the IARC’s assessments perplexing.
This year, JECFA, the WHO committee on additives, is also examining the usage of aspartame. Its meeting started at the end of June, and it is scheduled to release its conclusions on July 14—the same day the IARC publicises its verdict.
JECFA has stated since 1981 that aspartame is safe to ingest within established daily limits. For instance, a 60 kg (132 lb) adult would have to consume between 12 and 36 cans of diet cola each day, depending on the amount of aspartame in the beverage, to put themselves in danger. National regulators, including those in the United States and Europe, mostly shared this viewpoint.
According to an IARC spokesperson, the conclusions of the IARC and JECFA committees are both “confidential” until July but are “complementary,” with the IARC’s decision serving as “the first fundamental step to understand carcinogenicity.” The additives committee “conducts risk assessment, which determines the probability of a specific type of harm (e.g., cancer) to occur under certain conditions and levels of exposure.”
However, the business community and officials worry that scheduling two processes close together could be confusing. Nozomi Tomita, a representative from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, wrote to Zsuzsanna Jakab, the deputy director general of the World Health Organisation, on March 27 saying, “We kindly ask both bodies to coordinate their efforts in reviewing aspartame to avoid any confusion or concerns among the public.” The letter also demanded that both bodies’ results be published on the same day, which is presently taking place.
Danger caused by aspartame
Aspartame has undergone the most extensive research and testing of any chemical food additive over the past 40 years, including investigations into potential cancer-related effects. A review of more than 100 studies revealed no proof that aspartame is harmful. Around 100 countries around the world, including India, permit the use of aspartame and label it safe for use. Several products sold in India like Sugar-Free, Pepsi, Coca Cola, Jams, jellies, frozen desserts, chewing gums, etc are allowed to use aspartame by FSSAI.
Debate revolving around aspartame and IARC
The conclusions of the IARC may be quite significant. In 2015, its committee reached the “probably carcinogenic” conclusion regarding glyphosate. Even after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other organizations disputed this, the decision’s impacts were still being felt by businesses. In 2021, German company Bayer’s third attempt to overturn judgments from American courts awarding damages to clients who claimed their use of the company’s glyphosate-based weedkillers caused their malignancies failed.
The IARC’s decisions have also come under fire for raising unnecessary concerns about things or circumstances that are difficult to avoid. It had previously classified using mobile phones as “possibly cancer-causing,” similar to aspartame, and classifying working overnight and eating red meat as “probably cancer-causing” activities.
“IARC is not a food safety body and their review of aspartame is not scientifically comprehensive and is based heavily on widely discredited research,” Frances Hunt-Wood, the secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA) said. The group said it had “serious concerns with the IARC review, which may mislead consumers” and was made up of members such as Mars Wrigley, a Coca-Cola subsidiary, and Cargill.
Kate Loatman, executive director of the International Council of Beverages Associations, stated that the “leaked opinion” should cause public health authorities to be “deeply concerned” and that it “could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar instead of choosing safe low-sugar options.”
Numerous studies on aspartame have been conducted over the years. An observational study conducted in France last year involving 100,000 participants revealed a small increase in cancer risk among those who ingested more artificial sweeteners, including aspartame.
According to the reports, it came after a study from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy in the early 2000s claimed that aspartame may have caused some tumors in mice and rats. However, the first study was unable to demonstrate that aspartame was responsible for the elevated cancer risk, and concerns have been voiced about the second study’s methodology, notably by EFSA, who evaluated it.
Regulators have approved the consumption of aspartame around the world after thoroughly examining the facts, and significant food and beverage manufacturers have defended the use of the chemical for decades. The IARC reported that in their review from June, it had evaluated 1,300 studies.
According to individuals close to the IARC, the IARC’s decision to list aspartame as a potential carcinogen is meant to spur further investigation that will enable agencies, consumers, and producers to make more informed decisions. But it’s also likely to reignite discussion about the IARC’s function and the general safety of sweeteners.
The WHO published recommendations last month telling people not to use artificial sweeteners to lose weight. The rules sparked a controversy in the food business, which claims they can be beneficial for consumers looking to cut back on their intake of sugar.
