One of the world’s most commonly utilized artificial sweeteners is on the brink of being labeled as a potential carcinogen by a prominent global health organization.
According to Reuters, two sources have reported that in July, aspartame is expected to be classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research division of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Aspartame can be found in a range of products, spanning from diet sodas manufactured by Coca-Cola to Mars’ Extra chewing gum and certain drinks offered by Snapple.
The decision to classify aspartame as a potential carcinogen comes after a recent gathering of external experts from the IARC. During the meeting, these experts thoroughly examined all the existing evidence to assess the potential hazards associated with aspartame.
The focus of IARC’s ruling is to determine the potential risk posed by a substance, without considering the safe consumption limits for individuals. This year, the World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) will also be conducting an evaluation of aspartame to provide guidance on safe consumption levels. The findings of both IARC and JECFA regarding aspartame will be announced on July 14.
As of now, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has stated that the results of their assessment, as well as those of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), regarding aspartame, are considered confidential and will be made public in July. Emphasizing their complementary nature, the spokesperson underlined that the conclusions reached by both committees will be disclosed at that time.
The IARC’s determination serves as a fundamental first step in comprehending the potential carcinogenicity of aspartame. Conversely, the additives committee, JECFA, focuses on conducting a risk assessment that specifically evaluates the likelihood of specific harm, such as cancer, occurring under certain conditions and levels of exposure.
Since 1981, JECFA has consistently affirmed the safety of aspartame within approved daily limits. This perspective has garnered extensive backing from national regulatory bodies, including those in the United States and Europe. The assessment is founded on determining the quantity of aspartame that an individual can safely consume.
The previous determinations made by the IARC regarding various substances have sparked consumer concerns, leading to lawsuits and prompting manufacturers to reformulate their products and explore alternative options. Critics contend that the assessments conducted by the IARC can be confusing and perplexing for the general public.
The simultaneous evaluation of the IARC and JECFA has raised concerns among industry and regulators, who fear potential confusion. In a letter dated March 27, which was reviewed by Reuters, an official from Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare urged both organizations to synchronize their efforts and release their conclusions concurrently. The aim is to prevent any public confusion or concerns that may arise from disparate or conflicting information.
“We kindly ask both bodies to coordinate their efforts in reviewing Aspartame to avoid any confusion or concerns among the public,” Nozomi Tomita, an official from Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, wrote in a letter dated March 27 to WHO’s deputy director general, Zsuzsanna Jakab.
The decisions made by the IARC carry substantial significance and can have profound implications. A notable example occurred in 2015 when the IARC classified glyphosate, a herbicide, as “probably carcinogenic,” despite differing viewpoints from other organizations such as the European Food Safety Authority. This determination triggered ongoing repercussions for companies like Germany’s Bayer, as they faced lawsuits from customers attributing their cancer diagnoses to glyphosate-based weedkillers.
The IARC has faced criticism for potentially generating unwarranted alarm by classifying specific substances or circumstances as potentially cancer-causing. Examples of such classifications include working overnight, consuming red meat, and using mobile phones. Critics argue that these categorizations may lead to unnecessary concerns among the public.
Frances Hunt-Wood, the secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA), highlighted that the IARC is not a food safety authority and expressed apprehensions regarding the evaluation of aspartame. She deemed the review scientifically incomplete and heavily dependent on discredited research. The ISA, representing major members such as Mars Wrigley, Coca-Cola, and Cargill, raises significant concerns about the IARC review, fearing potential consumer misinterpretation and misinformation.
Aspartame has been the subject of extensive research throughout the years. In a recent observational study conducted in France involving 100,000 adults, a slightly elevated cancer risk was observed among individuals who consumed larger quantities of artificial sweeteners, including aspartame.
However, it is important to note that this study did not establish a causal relationship between aspartame consumption and an increased risk of cancer.
Doubts have been raised regarding the methodology employed in a previous study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, which suggested a connection between aspartame and certain cancers in mice and rats. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carefully examined this study and expressed concerns about its methodology.
Based on a comprehensive review of the existing evidence, regulators worldwide have granted authorization for the use of aspartame. Major food and beverage companies have also supported its use for numerous decades, emphasizing its safety and efficacy.
According to reports, the June review conducted by the IARC encompassed an analysis of 1,300 studies. The classification of aspartame as a potential carcinogen is intended to stimulate additional research, with the goal of reaching more definitive conclusions for agencies, consumers, and manufacturers. However, this classification is likely to spark renewed debates regarding the role of the IARC and the overall safety of sweeteners.
In recent weeks, the World Health Organization (WHO) published guidelines that discourage the utilization of non-sugar sweeteners for weight management, generating controversy within the food industry. Representatives from the industry contend that these sweeteners can be advantageous for individuals aiming to reduce their sugar consumption.
