A recent survey indicates that 50% of Americans have a sweet tooth. Other countries like Germany and the UK have an even higher percentage of the population that report liking sweet foods. Because we know the harm that too much sugar intake can cause, other alternatives have been discovered to satisfy those cravings. For those who desire sweetness without the burden of weight gain, these options offer safe alternatives. People who use artificial sweeteners include those who want to savor a steaming cup of coffee or individuals with diabetes who desire to indulge in a sugary delight without affecting their insulin levels. However, recent publications have suggested that these alternatives are not safe choices. This article will evaluate the current standing of these sweeteners and what these findings may mean.
The safety of these artificial sweeteners has been evaluated under regulatory guidance and scientific methodologies. For example, in the United States, both aspartame and Sucralose are approved food additives under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specific uses. This means that they have followed the regulations and scientific requirements set by the FDA to make sure these products are safe to use. In the European Union (EU), aspartame (E 951) and Sucralose (E 955) are authorized food additives used as sweeteners in food products that have been evaluated and approved by the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA). However, there have been recent reports and publications calling the safety of these sweeteners into question.
Aspartame As A Carcinogen
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified aspartame as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B: Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans). However, it is important to evaluate the limitations of IARC monographs when it comes to real world scenarios, including the fact that IARC only identifies potential hazards and does not evaluate dose or exposure risk when reviewing information. There are other limitations to the IARC assessment process when it comes to evaluation of information and how it translates to a risk assessment. Understanding these limitations is important when evaluating the overall carcinogenic potential and safe use of aspartame.
A recent study being highlighted in news media identifies potential health implications for Sucralose via the sucralose-6-acetate analog. The study examined Sucralose and an analog (considered an impurity by the authors) using various testing guidelines from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other methods described in published literature. It is not clear if good laboratory practices (GLP) were followed for any of the evaluation methods of Sucralose and the analog. As stated previously and within the study, Sucralose is an approved food additive. These types of regulatory assessments involve scientific evaluations and data submissions for regulatory review before they are approved.
This new information should be evaluated in both the context and within the wide body of literature in the knowledge database. As history will show, artificial sweeteners have been down this road before. Previously, saccharin was labeled as ‘reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen’ and required a cancer warning on the label. However, after conducting a more thorough assessment of the sweetener, it was determined that the mechanism responsible for the development of bladder tumors in male rats receiving high doses was not applicable to humans. Consequently, in the year 2000, the warning was lifted.
The above sweeteners have been studied in previous regulatory submissions. The anticipated findings by IARC or other publications should be evaluated in context to identify the actual risk assessment from ingestion, not just a theoretical hazard that may hypothetically exist.
Please feel free to reach out to Exposure Assessment Consulting to discuss these exposure and risk scenarios. We have previous experience evaluating the safety of food ingredients and can assist with any questions your clients may have on these exposures and related risk assessment.
References:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903
https://nypost.com/2023/06/06/chemical-found-in-splenda-damages-dna-genotoxic-discovery/
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/sweeteners
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4784
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/773600
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/aspartame
https://www.statista.com/chart/24713/sweets-chocolate-consumption-by-country/
https://nypost.com/2023/06/06/chemical-found-in-splenda-damages-dna-genotoxic-discovery/
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet