Read more

July 14, 2023
2 min read
Save

WHO aspartame declaration draws mixed reaction from cancer experts

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Leaders of the oncology community expressed mixed reaction to International Agency for Research on Cancer’s declaration of aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

The FDA also released a statement disagreeing with the IARC's conclusion.

a soda being poured in a glass
Aspartame, found in products such as diet soda, has been deemed a possible carcinogen by the research arm of WHO. Image: Adobe Stock

American Cancer Society Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, said the announcement from the agency — the research arm of WHO — should serve as an opportunity for consumers to evaluate the potential long-term effects of what they put into their bodies.

“The American Cancer Society has always looked to respected lead agencies and organizations to determine whether human exposures cause cancer,” Dahut said in a press release. “The science is still evolving, but we recommend people use today’s report by IARC as a time to reflect on their use of aspartame, but also an opportunity to review their overall dietary intake, including processed meat and alcohol, known carcinogens associated with increased risk of cancer.”

William L. Dahut, MD
William Dahut

Dahut added that the society supports the agency’s call for more research of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners.

Others questioned the IARC declaration in light of determinations from other agencies.

“The WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives’ (JECFA) review says that aspartame is safe for human consumption,” Arnold Baskies, MD, former chairman of the national board of directors of American Cancer Society, as well as an NCI fellowship-trained surgical oncologist and member of the Coalition for Safe Food and Beverage Choices Expert Advisory Committee, said in a press release from the coalition. “JECFA is the authoritative international agency when it comes to food safety. The FDA relies on JECFA’s assessments as part of its process to determine not only what is safe to consume, but also what quantity.

“The American people should have confidence in their food and beverage choices because JECFA is the WHO agency that measures risk to humans from ingredients,” he added. “It is irresponsible to needlessly scare or confuse people. If there was any cause for concern, they would have adjusted the current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).”

On Thursday, IARC classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” with a Group 2B classification, citing “limited evidence” for its carcinogenicity in humans. JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight in the same announcement.

According to WHO, this served as the first time the IARC has evaluated aspartame and the third time for JECFA.

Emanuela Taioli, MD, PhD, director of Institute for Translational Epidemiology and associate director for population science at Mount Sinai's Tisch Cancer Institute, said she always welcomes agencies taking "a fresh look" at the hazard or risk posed by chemicals diffused in the human diet.

"These reviews are done periodically to make sure that new studies are taken into account, and to assess if the new results add information that could change the evaluation of a certain chemical," Taioli told Healio.

If patients ask Taioli about aspartame, she said she'd offer the following advice: "As we already knew, there is a max safe limit for consumption of aspartame with diet, which was set in the past and has not changed with this new evaluation. I would make sure that each person stays below the recommended dietary limits for this product."

The FDA on Friday also issued a response to the external safety reviews, placing a four-paragraph statement on an agency webpage dedicated to aspartame and other sweeteners in food.

“Aspartame being labeled by IARC as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ does not mean that aspartame is actually linked to cancer,” the FDA response read. “The FDA disagrees with IARC’s conclusion that these studies support classifying aspartame as a possible carcinogen to humans. FDA scientists reviewed the scientific information included in IARC’s review in 2021 when it was first made available and identified significant shortcomings in the studies on which IARC relied. We note that JECFA did not raise safety concerns for aspartame under the current levels of use and did not change the Acceptable Daily Intake.”

FDA’s response noted aspartame “is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” adding the regulatory agency’s scientists do not have safety concerns about aspartame’s use “under the approved conditions.”

“Some consumers may rely on products with aspartame and other sweeteners to help reduce their sugar consumption,” FDA’s response read. “We recognize that navigating different information from health organizations is challenging. We will continue to provide reliable, science-based information on aspartame and other sweeteners on the FDA’s web site to help consumers make informed choices."

The points the IARC and FDA are making are not at odds, Taioli said.

"IARC evaluates the hazard associated with a chemical. This is the first fundamental step to understand the carcinogenicity of an agent by identifying its specific properties and its potential to cause harm," Taioli told Healio. "The assessment of the risk of cancer posed to the population is a second step down the road and depends on several other factors. To this end, the FDA is reiterating here that the current permitted use levels are safe and should be respected. The two [pieces of] information are not contrasting with each other, they are complementary. IARC is signaling that more studies should be done to better understand the risks posed by aspartame; FDA says that the current limits are safe, which is also correct.”

References: