London, UK – One of the world’s most prevalent artificial sweeteners is on the verge of being declared a potential carcinogen by a prominent global health organization. Aspartame, a common ingredient found in numerous products, including Coca-Cola diet sodas, Mars’ Extra chewing gum, and select Snapple drinks, is expected to receive the classification of “possibly carcinogenic to humans” for the first time from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO). This groundbreaking development is set to ignite a contentious debate involving the food industry, regulators, and concerned consumers.
Citing information obtained from reliable sources familiar with the process, Reuters reports that the IARC ruling, finalized after a recent meeting of the organization’s external experts, aims to evaluate the potential hazards of aspartame based on comprehensive published evidence. It is important to note that the assessment does not take into account safe consumption levels but solely focuses on determining whether a substance poses a potential risk. Specific guidelines regarding the acceptable consumption of products containing aspartame are provided by the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and national regulatory bodies.
Past IARC rulings on various substances have not only raised concerns among consumers but have also led to lawsuits and motivated manufacturers to reformulate their products and seek alternatives. Consequently, the IARC’s assessments have faced criticism for being confusing to the general public. This year, JECFA, the WHO committee responsible for additives, is also reviewing the use of aspartame and is expected to announce its findings simultaneously with the IARC on July 14, thus adding to the potential confusion for industry and regulators.
Since 1981, JECFA has declared aspartame safe for consumption within established daily limits. For instance, an average-weight adult would have to consume between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda daily, depending on the aspartame content, in order to be at risk. This viewpoint has been widely supported by national regulators, including those in the United States and Europe.
According to a spokesperson from the IARC, the findings of both the IARC and JECFA committees are currently confidential until their official release in July. The spokesperson emphasized that the conclusions of the two bodies are complementary, with the IARC’s conclusion representing the initial crucial step in understanding the potential carcinogenicity of a substance. On the other hand, the additives committee conducts a risk assessment that determines the probability of specific harm, such as cancer, under certain conditions and levels of exposure.
- Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Other Commodities Are Threatened By The War In Sudan
- The Gesture Of Cristiano Ronaldo That Hit The Shares Of Coca Cola
- The ‘Mr. Cider’ Poisoning Affected The Low-Alcohol Beverage Industry
Expressing concerns about potential confusion arising from the simultaneous processes, U.S. and Japanese regulators have called for coordination between the two bodies. In a letter dated March 27 to WHO’s deputy director general, Zsuzsanna Jakab, Nozomi Tomita, an official from Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, urged both organizations to align their efforts in reviewing aspartame to prevent any misconceptions or anxieties among the public. The Japanese mission in Geneva, where the WHO is headquartered, did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment.
The IARC’s rulings hold significant influence and can have far-reaching consequences. For example, in 2015, the committee concluded that glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, is “probably carcinogenic.” Despite subsequent contestation by other bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority, the decision continued to impact companies, with Germany’s Bayer losing multiple appeals against court verdicts that awarded damages to customers who attributed their cancers to the use of glyphosate-based weedkillers.
Critics argue that the IARC’s classifications have at times unnecessarily alarmed the public about substances or situations that are difficult to avoid. The agency has four different classification levels: carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, and not classifiable. These levels are determined based on the strength of the evidence rather than the actual level of danger posed by a substance.
The first category includes substances like processed meat and asbestos, for which there is substantial evidence showing their carcinogenic properties. Activities such as working overnight and consuming red meat fall into the “probable” classification, indicating limited evidence of their potential to cause cancer in humans but stronger evidence in animals or similarities to known human carcinogens. The “possibly cancer-causing” category includes items like radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with mobile phone use. Aspartame falls into this group, indicating limited evidence of potential carcinogenicity in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, or substantial evidence regarding its characteristics.
Frances Hunt-Wood, secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA), criticized the IARC’s review process, stating that it lacks scientific comprehensiveness and relies heavily on discredited research. The ISA, whose members include Mars Wrigley, a unit of Coca-Cola, and Cargill, expressed serious concerns about the IARC’s evaluation, suggesting that it may mislead consumers.
Kate Loatman, the executive director of the International Council of Beverages Associations, warned that public health authorities should be deeply concerned about the leaked opinion and its potential to mislead consumers into choosing higher-sugar alternatives rather than safe no- or low-sugar options.
Aspartame has undergone extensive studies over the years. In a recent observational study conducted in France, which involved 100,000 adults, it was found that individuals who consumed higher amounts of artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, had a slightly elevated risk of cancer. However, this study was unable to establish a causal relationship between aspartame consumption and increased cancer risk. Questions have also been raised about the methodology of an earlier study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, which linked aspartame to cancer in mice and rats. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has scrutinized and assessed the validity of this study.
Aspartame has been authorized for use by regulatory bodies worldwide following a comprehensive review of all available evidence. Major food and beverage companies have defended the use of aspartame in their products for several decades. The IARC claims to have evaluated 1,300 studies in its recent review.
The concerns surrounding aspartame and its potential classification as a possible carcinogen are exemplified by the actions of soft drink giant PepsiCo. The company made recipe adjustments in response to industry challenges, removing aspartame from its sodas in 2015, reintroducing it a year later, and subsequently eliminating it again in 2020.
The classification of aspartame as a possible carcinogen by the IARC aims to stimulate further research and facilitate more informed conclusions for regulatory agencies, consumers, and manufacturers. However, it is expected to reignite the debate surrounding the role of the IARC and the safety of sweeteners in general.
In a controversial move, the WHO recently published guidelines advising consumers against using non-sugar sweeteners for weight control, triggering a strong reaction from the food industry, which argues that these sweeteners can be beneficial for individuals seeking to reduce their sugar intake.
As the public eagerly awaits the official announcements from both the IARC and JECFA in July, the scrutiny surrounding Coca-Cola’s use of aspartame and the potential carcinogenicity of the sweetener will undoubtedly intensify. The outcome of these assessments will likely have significant implications for the food and beverage industry, regulatory bodies, and consumers worldwide.
