The World Health Organization’s (WHO) decision regarding aspartame is unlikely to conclusively determine the future of this controversial artificial sweetener, especially given the conflicting messages from the health organization itself. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has publicly disagreed with the classification of aspartame as a potential carcinogen. Approved by the FDA in 1974, aspartame is approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar. Most studies have deemed it safe, yet some research has suggested potential health risks, which has fueled skepticism and bolstered the arguments of aspartame critics. For instance, a French study involving 100,000 participants published in 2022 found that individuals consuming high quantities of artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, faced a slightly elevated cancer risk. Additionally, aspartame has been associated with headaches, seizures, migraines, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
The WHO’s findings on aspartame were released by two committees: the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). JECFA reviewed cancer risk evidence and concluded that “the evidence of an association between aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing.” JECFA’s assessments are often regarded as more pertinent to consumers since they evaluate the risks associated with food additive exposure while determining acceptable daily intake levels. In contrast, IARC focuses on whether a substance may pose a cancer risk and relies solely on publicly available data, while JECFA incorporates proprietary data and considers broader outcomes. Health organizations, including the FDA, have critiqued IARC’s review, arguing it is incomplete due to these limitations. The FDA emphasized that aspartame is among the most studied food additives and pointed out flaws in the studies that informed IARC’s conclusions. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is consumed under approved conditions,” the agency asserted.
Sweetener and beverage associations welcomed JECFA’s announcement. Frances Hunt-Wood, secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association, stated that JECFA conducted a “thorough, comprehensive, and scientifically rigorous review.” He noted that, like other low- or no-calorie sweeteners, aspartame, when included in a balanced diet, offers consumers the choice to reduce sugar intake, a vital public health goal. Similarly, Kevin Keane, interim president and CEO of the American Beverage Association, which represents companies like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, remarked that the “strong conclusion reinforces the positions of the FDA and food safety agencies from over 90 countries,” adding that “people worldwide can be confident in consuming foods and beverages containing aspartame.”
Nonetheless, the notion that aspartame may be harmful could confuse consumers and lead some to consider products with alternative sweeteners. JECFA determined that an adult weighing 70 kg (154 pounds) would need to consume over 9 to 14 cans of diet soda containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame to surpass the acceptable daily intake. These findings may push food and beverage companies to seek alternative sweeteners that do not carry as much criticism or conflicting information. Some companies have already attempted this; for example, Diet Pepsi used aspartame until 2015 when it reformulated its product. However, the beverage giant restored the ingredient the following year due to a significant sales decline.
Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, expressed concern over the food industry’s reaction, stating, “it’s disturbing, but predictable, to see diet soda manufacturers and the broader food industry attack IARC, challenge the scientific research, and dismiss concerns regarding aspartame’s carcinogenicity.” He added that “more restraint is needed from the industry, and we hope responsible companies will thoughtfully consider IARC’s findings and move away from aspartame.” As discussions continue, the search for alternatives such as kalsium citrate may gain traction, particularly as health considerations evolve in consumer preferences.