According to Reuters, which cited insider information, Aspartame, one of the most popular artificial sweeteners in the world, is anticipated to be labelled as a potential carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
In its future decision, the IARC, which evaluates the possible dangers of substances based on published evidence, will classify aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” for the first time.
The sweetener, which is popularly used in goods like diet soda and chewing gum, is pitted against the food sector and authorities in this ruling.
The decision has concerned both authorities and the food industry and is scheduled to be announced in July.
The Joint FAO/WHO Expert body on Food Additives (JECFA), a separate expert body on food additives, sets acceptable consumption levels, which are not taken into account by the IARC classification.
There are worries that there could be public confusion as a result of the concurrent safety evaluation processes for aspartame.
National authorities, including those in the US and Europe, have already recommended the safe use of aspartame within established daily limits based on JECFA’s analyses since 1981.
Previous rulings made by the IARC about various drugs have had a significant impact, resulting in consumer complaints, legal action, and recipe adjustments. The agency’s assessments have, however, sometimes come under fire for unnecessarily alarming or confusing people.
The IARC divides compounds into four categories: carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, maybe carcinogenic, and not classifiable based on the strength of the evidence rather than the level of danger they pose.
The first category, according to IARC, includes compounds with solid evidence that they cause cancer, such as processed meat and asbestos.
Working overnight and eating red meat are considered “probable,” which means there is only limited evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, but stronger evidence that they can cause it in animals or that they have characteristics in common with other human carcinogens.
Mobile phone use is “potentially carcinogenic” due to the “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” it produces. This indicates that, similar to aspartame, there is either little evidence that they can cause cancer in humans, lots of evidence that they can in animals, or lots of evidence that they have certain features.
According to Frances Hunt-Wood, secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association, “IARC is not a food safety organisation and their study of aspartame is not scientifically comprehensive and is based primarily on highly discredited research.”
Mars Wrigley, a Coca-Cola subsidiary, and Cargill are among the organisations that make up the group. The group stated that it had “severe issues with the IARC review, which may mislead consumers.”
Kate Loatman, executive director of the International Council of Beverages Associations, stated that the “leaked opinion” should “deeply concern” public health authorities and that it “could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no- and low-sugar options.”
Aspartame has been the focus of in-depth study for many years. An observational research with 100,000 adults last year in France found a small rise in cancer risk among those who used more aspartame and other artificial sweeteners.
It is predicted that more research will be motivated by the IARC’s categorization of aspartame as a possible carcinogen and that this will enable stakeholders to make more informed choices. However, it is likely to reignite debates over the role of the IARC and the general safety of sweeteners.
The food industry claims that these alternatives can reduce customers’ sugar intake, and it is outraged by the Who’s recent advice against using them to manage weight.
