Does Nutrasweet (aspartame) cause cancer (in people)?

Jthanmyfitnesspal

It's been a little while since we debated this. Maybe everyone else has moved on from artificial sweeteners and I'm just falling back on my 1990s habits! (Wouldn't be the first time...)

It's topical for me as I'm cutting and I decided to drop the agave syrup in my tea, using Nutrasweet (aspartame) instead. I typically use half a packet and might have 3-4 mugs of tea a day. That's about 80mg of aspartame daily, which, in the parlance of these studies, is about 1PPM by mass. (And, it's spread out in time, so at any particular point in the day it's a fraction of that.)

My wife is a cancer survivor, so she has a hightened level of concern, even about me (bless her heart). So, of course I checked the latest literature via Pubmed to see what I could learn.

There are recent publications claiming a positive effect of aspartame given daily for the entire life of a rat at the amount of >2000ppm by weight daily for entire lifetime. There has been considerable debate about this result and it looks like it is not completely settled if it is valid. Here is a meta-analysis from 2007 that shows the mean effect is very small, if it exists at all in rats:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/

There is a very recent study among human subjects, very small positive effects (more cancers) were found in the populations who used artificial sweeteners, including aspartame. But, the effect on prostate cancer (most relevant to me) is consistent with 1 (no increased cancer) within the errors of the study. Here it is:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950

Of course, my thought is "what is this risk compared with the risk of not controlling my weight?" This is a really hard question. I'm pondering if I can train myself to enjoy tea without any sweetener. Of that, I am really not sure!

SO: What's everyone else think? Does anyone care anymore about artificial sweeteners anymore?

paperpudding

I think this debate has been thoroughly exhausted on MFP and the information by Aaron, a scientist in this area, is the best explanation.

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1

89 pages worth.

Is there really anything new to say?

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@paperpudding : thanks for pointing me to that thread from way back in 2014! Of course aspartame has been around since the 90s, and the chemistry hasn't changed. The OP of that thread (@Aaron_K123) is really helpful, and sort of "prove" that aspartame couldn't cause any particular toxicity.

Yet, our fearless scientists soldier on. The rat studies keep popping up (it's a pretty easy study to do) and the second one I list is from 2022, with some small effects noted. No mechanism of toxicity is given in most studies.

nay0m3

@Jthanmyfitnesspal I don't know about aspartame but check out Good Earth Sweet & Spicy tea---no sweetness is needed with this, I swear!! Or try it with just a touch of maple syrup or honey.

paperpudding

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

@paperpudding : thanks for pointing me to that thread from way back in 2014! Of course aspartame has been around since the 90s, and the chemistry hasn't changed. The OP of that thread (@Aaron_K123) is really helpful, and sort of "prove" that aspartame couldn't cause any particular toxicity.

Yet, our fearless scientists soldier on. The rat studies keep popping up (it's a pretty easy study to do) and the second one I list is from 2022, with some small effects noted. No mechanism of toxicity is given in most studies.

The thread started in 2014.

It was still active, including explanations by its OP, well into 2021.

You seem to be suggesting things have changed since then, just over a year ago. .

I don't think so.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

No, I’m not suggesting that the new studies necessarily supersede the older ones. More that they appear in the news and create renewed debate.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

nay0m3 wrote: »

@Jthanmyfitnesspal I don't know about aspartame but check out Good Earth Sweet & Spicy tea---no sweetness is needed with this, I swear!! Or try it with just a touch of maple syrup or honey.

Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out.

I love my fancy Assam tea with a tsp of agave and a splash of milk. I have 3-4 cups a day, and sometimes herb tea in the evening again with agave or honey. I realized that I was consuming around 100kcals of agave per day. I like it sweet! I'm switching back to aspartame, at least for now.

BTW, my cut this time around is working very well! I am getting a bit older, and I wondered if it would be harder this year, but apparently not. The aspartame may not be essential, but it is helpful.

ghrmj

I see your point as being: if the science is supposedly "settled' then why are they still running studies? Which I think is a valid question.
For me personally I don't like the taste of artificial sweeteners in tea so I use a bit of honey, but I do drink the occasional diet Pepsi (not sure if that is aspartame or something else).
But I have a similar dilemma with a couple of other substances ... Apparently recent studies have suggested that white wine is somewhat strongly associated with the cancer I had in 2019 (squamous cell skin cancer) which is really a bummer for me as it is my drink of choice.
I was also recommended NAC supplements for sinus issues and after taking them for a while came across a study showing an increase in melanoma metastasis in mice given NAC. Which also kind of freaked me out as I have had (a different) skin cancer, which puts me at higher melanoma risk to begin with.
I am a somewhat anxious person so for me I tend to cut it out if I have any doubts or concerns at all. I personally don't think a bit of honey in tea in place of the artificial sweetener would make a huge difference calorie wise - I'd just cut back a bit on something else.

cmriverside

I see your point as being: if the science is supposedly "settled' then why are they still running studies? Which I think is a valid question.

Well, because every couple years a new "batch" of dieters needs new scaremongering, of course. There are so many overweight people that any story about any weight loss thing sells. Aspartame is one of those fear-factors that overweight people can use to say, "I have to drink full calorie soda because cancer."

Meh, I think I was over artificial sweeteners in 1974. Haven't really bought them since Fresca.

Yep. I'm old.

neanderthin

Science is never settled.

ghrmj

cmriverside wrote: »

I see your point as being: if the science is supposedly "settled' then why are they still running studies? Which I think is a valid question.

Well, because every couple years a new "batch" of dieters needs new scaremongering, of course. There are so many overweight people that any story about any weight loss thing sells. Aspartame is one of those fear-factors that overweight people can use to say, "I have to drink full calorie soda because cancer."

Meh, I think I was over artificial sweeteners in 1974. Haven't really bought them since Fresca.

Yep. I'm old.

Sorry - are you suggesting that the French National Cancer Institute (and other gov't agencies) that funded the study, and the scientists that took part, did so in order to "scare dieters"? To what end?

cmriverside

ghrmj wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I see your point as being: if the science is supposedly "settled' then why are they still running studies? Which I think is a valid question.

Well, because every couple years a new "batch" of dieters needs new scaremongering, of course. There are so many overweight people that any story about any weight loss thing sells. Aspartame is one of those fear-factors that overweight people can use to say, "I have to drink full calorie soda because cancer."

Meh, I think I was over artificial sweeteners in 1974. Haven't really bought them since Fresca.

Yep. I'm old.

Sorry - are you suggesting that the French National Cancer Institute (and other gov't agencies) that funded the study, and the scientists that took part, did so in order to "scare dieters"? To what end?

I am suggesting that it is a rabbit hole. Nothing has ever been found, so why continue to drag this red herring across our radar every couple years? How about spending those research dollars on finding out why people don't stop their over-eating? I guess research follows dollars though - and cancer is big bucks - so that explains it.

(how's that for a bunch of mixed metaphors? )

Most of my post was written in sarcasm font. Sorry you didn't recognize that :flowerforyou:

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@cmriverside is pointing out a real motivation among scientists: getting recognized. One way to do this is to claim something causes cancer. It seems like the rat studies with high doses of aspartame are in this category. These are pretty easy studies to do. And, I don't doubt that very high doses of aspartame given every day of the life of an animal cause cancer!

Many French are very much into farm-to-table organic foods.

SafariGalNYC

@Jthanmyfitnesspal I drink black coffee and black tea.. come on over to the dark side.
There are scientific studies on so many foods.. but my logic is .. If I'm drinking or eating it everyday.. why not just cut it out if there is a question on safety? If its something I eat/drink rarely.. I could see more wiggle room as its a rare occurrence.. thus less potential hazard.

cmriverside

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

@cmriverside is pointing out a real motivation among scientists: getting recognized. One way to do this is to claim something causes cancer. It seems like the rat studies with high doses of aspartame are in this category. These are pretty easy studies to do. And, I don't doubt that very high doses of aspartame given every day of the life of an animal cause cancer!

Many French are very much into farm-to-table organic foods.

I remember when those rat/aspartame studies first came out in the sixties or seventies.

I remember more than once saying, "Yeah someone fed a whole room full of sweet n low to a rat and it died. NewsFLash!!" and I was just a kid, I knew that whole research thing was bogus even back then. Let's worry about real stuff, shall we? No one has to use aspartame. If it bothers you that a rat died, then use something else. It's a non-issue. Seriously.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@SafariGalNYC Drinking unsweetened tea makes me sad. Happiness is worth something.

Hiawassee88

There are so many alternatives. If any food/sweetening agent gives someone angst and anxiety, cut it out. Anecdotal evidence may not mean much, but my great and grandmother used pharmaceutical grade saccharin for decades. They both lived into their mid 90's. They didn't suffer any of the side effects that have been reported. They ordered it from a pharmacy. Life is too short to be worried about nutrasweet. Find an alternative.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843803/#:~:text=The results obtained in the,increased risk of brain carcinogenesis.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@Hiawassee88 : That's a very complete article with a good foundation in the pharmacology of saccharine. Thanks for posting it. It sure makes saccharine sound deadly!

Hiawassee88

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

@Hiawassee88 : That's a very complete article with a good foundation in the pharmacology of saccharine. Thanks for posting it. It sure makes saccharine sound deadly!

My aunts are still ordering it. It's a family tradition. I don't use it, because I prefer cowboy coffee. I'll drink it with grounds and a lil campfire dirt.

ghrmj

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

@cmriverside is pointing out a real motivation among scientists: getting recognized. One way to do this is to claim something causes cancer. It seems like the rat studies with high doses of aspartame are in this category. These are pretty easy studies to do. And, I don't doubt that very high doses of aspartame given every day of the life of an animal cause cancer!

Many French are very much into farm-to-table organic foods.

I was actually referring the the newer published study from March 2022 that you posted in the OP - it wasn't an animal study - and it seemed that the funding for that one was from various French and European public health agencies which struck me as legitimate.

I do get that study results can be skewed based on the various interests of those involved, I was just trying to ascertain what she believed the motive might be for those particular agencies, for this specific study.

(To be clear I have no opinion one way or another regarding aspartame - I am only participating because you posted the studies and they caught my interest.)

AnnPT77

There are a gazillion studies on thousands of topics, most of them narrow questions. Things get tested and retested with a different twist. That's how science is supposed to work: Novel research (maybe with flaws), replication of research for confirmation, slightly different ways of researching the same question (maybe trying to avoid the initial research's flaws) that yield slightly different outcomes, and all that. It's messy, but that's how it works. Most of the public has an extremely poor understanding of how that works.

A better question is why popular press coverage of the studies - starting from press releases by the researchers' employer, often - keeps circling around the same topics.

It's mostly popular press picking out this study or that study (from the gazillions) and using statistics that are maybe strictly accurate, but will be interpreted by the statistically naive as being a bigger deal than the reality supports. (Example: The kind of thing like "50% more deaths" where deaths went from 2 per 100,000 to 3 per 100,000 or something like that.) Often it's the reporters who are among the statistically naive, and they spread their misunderstandings to others.

Clickbait, publicity bait by the researchers' employers (sometimes the researchers themselves) - those are a pretty big part of why there's a regular tempest-in-teapot tizzy about the same old topics. Only rarely is there meaningful new insight. Sometimes, yeah. But not necessarily. And much research just goes ignored - even good, useful research - because it didn't happen to hit the popular hot buttons.

cmriverside

Hiawassee88 wrote: »

There are so many alternatives. If any food/sweetening agent gives someone angst and anxiety, cut it out. Anecdotal evidence may not mean much, but my great and grandmother used pharmaceutical grade saccharin for decades. They both lived into their mid 90's. They didn't suffer any of the side effects that have been reported. They ordered it from a pharmacy. Life is too short to be worried about nutrasweet. Find an alternative.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843803/#:~:text=The results obtained in the,increased risk of brain carcinogenesis.

Way off into the weeds here (sorry, Jthan...) but, why did they order it from a pharmacy? Are you in some place where they don't sell Sweet N Low? I mean, that's what Sweet N Low is, and that's what the early studies found to be possibly* carcinogenic in rats in the 60s.


*when an animal that lives three years is fed a bazillion times its recommended daily dosage...

penguinmama87

Hiawassee88 wrote: »

There are so many alternatives. If any food/sweetening agent gives someone angst and anxiety, cut it out. Anecdotal evidence may not mean much, but my great and grandmother used pharmaceutical grade saccharin for decades. They both lived into their mid 90's. They didn't suffer any of the side effects that have been reported. They ordered it from a pharmacy. Life is too short to be worried about nutrasweet. Find an alternative.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843803/#:~:text=The results obtained in the,increased risk of brain carcinogenesis.

This made me laugh, because all of my grandparents are living today in their late 80s and early 90s, independently and in great health, and they all eat lots of what is derided today as "chemicals" (the descendants of the things that they could afford and ate lots of in their childhoods in the 1930s and 40s.) One of my grandmothers likes to joke that she eats so much artificial stuff it must be keeping her very well preserved.

Two have had skin cancer, but they spend tons of time outside, and I think the link to sun exposure is probably the stronger element there. And all the time outdoors has probably had a lot more pros than cons as far as their health goes.

It could just be that they have the genetic luck to not be predisposed to some risk factors. I personally would not enjoy eating the way that they do. But I really cannot say at all that it's been harmful to them.

ninerbuff

Artificial sweeteners have been one of the most studied ingredients like forever. I think the scaremongers just like to pick out studies that best support their stance against it. I like having artificial sweeteners in my life. Allows me to eat just about anything I want without a huge calorie bomb. Especially all the drinks we sell here like Bucked Up, Reign, OP Amino Energy, Ghost, etc.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Jthanmyfitnesspal

@ghrmj : I agree that the French study is well intended and well done. I don’t question their integrity at all. I think the reason the French in particular might do such a study is their general interest in organic food. I have no objection!

In any case, this study only shows small correlations of aspartame and cancer, many consistent with no measurable effect within errors (eg, for prostate cancer). Correlation does not mean causality, and there are many rational why people who choose to use aspartame may be at higher risk than those who don’t.

E43V15C

If it does, I'd have tumours growing out of my head like those people in the magazines lol- King Charles was just diagnosed w/ cancer hmm lol- I think it's luck of the draw- some people can use drugs w/ nil effects for years and carry on normally- where as others go to space/have bad trips straight away and are sworn off it- there has always been a lot of aspartame fear mongering in the media- it's not dangerous, just expensive imo

paperpudding

King Charles is 75 years old.
One of biggest risk factors for cancer is age.

Interesting you say aspartame is expensive - not here in Australia it isn't.

Artificially sweetened soft drinks are same price as sugared drinks.