A new study on the effects of low daily doses of the artificial sweetener aspartame shows a statistically significant increase in leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats. Consumer advocates are calling for the FDA to take another look at the safety of aspartame in light of the study, but the FDA seems uninterested.
“Because aspartame is so widely consumed, it is urgent that the FDA evaluate whether aspartame still poses a ‘reasonable certainty of no harm,’ the standard used for gauging the safety of food additives,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “But consumers, particularly parents, shouldn’t wait for the FDA to act. People shouldn’t panic, but they should stop buying beverages and foods containing aspartame.”
The study, which can be read here, followed a group of 4,000 rats who were given low daily doses of aspartame (comparable to what a dedicated human diet soda drinker might consume, were he/she a rat) beginning during “prenatal” life. The rats were dissected after natural death and the effects of the aspartame calculated. From the study:
The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM’s multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when lifespan exposure to [aspartame] begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased
The authors of the study claim that current research on the effects of aspartame are based on studies that did not use a large enough sample of animals and did not allow the animals to live out their natural lifespan.The authors also took issue with a study conducted by the US National Institutes of Health and the American Association of Retired Persons, in which a number of Americans responded to self-administered questionnaires about what they ate and the results compared to their rate of brain cancer.
The FDA responded to the CSPI in an email to Reuters, claiming not to have reviewed the study:
“However, the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies,” Herndon said in an e-mail.“Therefore, at this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.”
The CSPI has downgraded aspartame to “everyone should avoid,” and recommends choosing drinks that contain Splenda instead. CSPI regards Splenda as safe. If you drink a lot of aspartame, or you have kids who do, you might want to read the study and decide for yourself.
FDA Should Reconsider Aspartame Cancer Risk, Say Experts [CSPI]
FDA says unmoved by aspartame/cancer report [Reuters]
Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats [Environmental Health Perspectives]
More From Consumerist
-
Hold On To Your Cans, Diet Pepsi Devotees: Your Soda's Sweetener Is Getting Tweaked
-
NY Shuts Down Sham Fundraising Company That Took In Millions Of Donations For Breast Cancer “Research”
-
Study Links Consumption Of Diet Drinks To Depression
-
Diet Pepsi Switches Up Its Sweetener Ever So Quietly
-
NY Attorney General Calls On Breast Cancer Charities To Be Transparent About Where The Money Is Going
::looks at 12 empty diet coke cans on desk::
yeah, i’m dying soon. crap.
dervish: You’re looking at the numbers like an aspartame lobbyist. Every single reported measure of cancer/tumors except one was higher in both aspartame groups. You’re looking at the raw count of tumors, not the percentage. There were many more animals in the control group so the raw count of tumors was higher in that group.
Some of the increases in cancer were not statistically significant because there weren’t enough rats. If there were more rats, and they found the same effect, it would be statistically significant. We’re talking about a 12% increase in all malignant tumors in females.
Aspartame probably won’t kill you, but tobacco probably won’t kill you if you’re a smoker. Tobacco lobbyists successfully used your kind of analysis to defend smoking for decades.
Aspartame definitely needs more study, and I’ll lose all confidence in the FDA if they don’t review it again.
Dervish your assessment of the study is pretty much on the money. Going through most of the data it doesn’t seem to support the ‘doom and gloom’ of the headlines that cancer is just around the corner. There was basically zero statistical significnace in the male group between 0 and 400ppm. If you’re downing 2000ppm of aspartamine, I think cancer is probably the least of your concerns!!
The study although claiming to support their first study (which was incidentally analyzed and then panned as being not very good) the data doesn’t seem to support this very broad conclusion.
Honestly, is anyone truly surprised by this?
Sugar may not be good for you under some circumstances, but how much better can artificially created substances be? We barely have medicines without side effects, or 100% effective detergents (and don’t even try drinking it) – humans do not have a good track record of making stable, safe substances.
High-fructose corn syrup has been pinned in several studies as the main cause of obesity in America (it still pervades our food supply, because it’s cheaper). Aspartame has always been shrouded in mystery as to side-effects, but it has been similarly adopted as the staple of diet foods and drinks. I’m not surprised, and I’m steering clear of the stuff (as well as HFCS). You should do the same.
@jamier: Your pardon, you’re absolutely right about me not looking at it in terms of percentages. I apologize. But the numbers are still not as shocking as the article and the above comments make it sound. Regarding significance, it’s true that if the trend held with a larger sample the results would be statistically significant – but as was pointed out above in one of synergy’s comments, a larger sample size usually reduces significance and not the other way around.
And a 12% increase in all malignant tumors in females is misleading when you look at the column next to it – tumor-bearing animals. There is a .1% increase in tumor-bearing animals from the 0 ppm dose to the 400 ppm dose, which suggests that there are more multiple tumors per animal, and thus that perhaps certain animals are more prone to developing tumors when exposed to aspartame and some are not.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your next comment – I was never trying to suggest that aspartame was/was not itself poisonous, just that it’s role as a carcinogen isn’t as clear and dangerous as the study and article made it sound. And I still stand by my math above – they claim that they’ve selected levels similar to what a human might ingest, but even at 130 lbs with all the aspartame I get I still don’t reach the level comparable to the 400 ppm dosage.
I read the study, and I have to agree with Dervish. While the word “impartial” doesn’t come to mind when I think of the FDA, to make a correlation, you have to have support from your p values. Statistical significance for overall malignancy was found in the male group with exposure to aspartame elevated to twice the value of the US ADI. Statistical significance was found in females with lymphoma/leukemia again in the same dose grp. Is this a dose that can be reasonably applied to the population this study is trying to benefit? A study was quoted in which average consumption was much lower than the ADI, but that was in 2002 and it only addresses child-bearing aged women and children.
I agree with Jamier in that I think more studies are needed: some to reproduce or better qualify results, and some to examine the current average daily aspartame consumption for male and female adults and children in US and Europe. Results should be correlated to actual consumption; not only what is recommended.
But personally, I think everyone should give up sodas and drink more water, including myself.
Is it true that people that avoid artificial ingredients live longer, healthier lives? Surely there is a study to show this, right?
Oh crap, water is probably bad for us too….
I, too, would love to see soda companies go back to using cane sugar in their sodas instead of high fructose corn syrup. Coke and Pepsi use sugar in their beverages in foreign countries, so why not in the U.S.?
I drank diet soda for two years, and I never lost a single pound. I, did, however, develop a reaction to aspertame that causes me to have stomach aches whenever I do drink a diet soda. I switched back to regular soda and have not gained a pound.
One word people:
STEVIA
Look it up.
Available at your local health foods store, Whole Foods, or Trader Joes (or likely in your regular grocer as it is mixed into many Celestial Seasonings teas).
@browngt5:
“Coke and Pepsi use sugar in their beverages in foreign countries, so why not in the U.S.?”
Because the Sugar lobby puts protectionist policies in Agricultural bills that puts a quota on imported sugar, so while in other countries they pay the international market price for sugar, Americans pay three times that to support the executives at the big sugar companies.
Meanwhile, Archer Daniels which control the corn syrup isn’t complaining because it means they can earn windfall profits on their product and still be undercutting the cost of sugar.
There might be some argument that this system protects American jobs, but in reality most of the jobs protected are those of illegal alien cane harvesters in FL. Meanwhile, the high cost of sugar has forced many of those food manufacturers who can’t switch to HFCS to move off-shore, taking good unionized factory jobs in the candy industry with them.
You can buy soda made with actual sugar, just not from Coca-Cola or Pepsico. Solution? Develop better taste in soda.
I find it funny that at the end of the article there was a diet coke advert in the right hand corner.
We drink a few different sodas we buy at the Mexican market. They are made with real cane sugar and not corn syrup. The CocaCola bottled in Mexico is VERY sweet. There is also a company called “Jones” who makes real sugar drinks in the US.
@DS28: “For those unfamiliar with stats, “science” has a threshold of p
Which is why additional studies are done. By the 5th study at p
@mathew:
“You can buy soda made with actual sugar, just not from Coca-Cola or Pepsico.”
Actually you often can — just go to your local foreign foods store and look for Coke in the Mexican foods aisle — still in real glass bottles to boot!
Aspartame has been known to cause cancer, ADD, and other illnesses since the 70′s, when Donald Rumsfeld and others at the FDA originally denied there was any risk. I think you are always better off consuming the extra calories in a non-diet beverage than you are exposing yourself to the toxins of artificial sweeteners.
Okay let’s see here.
Rats get cancer. Rats? And this relates to humans how?
Come on people. Asprin KILLS rats.
Another medication I used to take, kills cats and dogs with just a few doses.
And let’s not get into the chemicals that are safe for rats or dogs, or any other creature but deadly to humans.
Sorry but the moment it’s an animal test I don’t pay ANY attention to it. We use too many products now that were deadly in animal testing but quite effective for us.
Besides I like to you know DRINK POP not suguar slug. Which is what non-diet tastes like.
I find it interesting that quite a few comments use every logical fallacy know to man to either promote or discredit aspartame and give the FDA a free pass as if government bodies do not collude or become subject to political and corporate interests as opposed to food/medicine safety. When they can bend the rules history has shown that they will.
I would certainly suggest people study more of the history of these organizations as well as the history and biological effects of exitotoxins like Aspertame and the rest. Of these toxins aspartame has the wonderful property of breaking down into formic acid and formaldehyde both in the body and in the container–reason enough to ban alone.
While billions are being made off of the substance there is going to be a fight on some sides and collusion on others to avoid getting it off the market. Presently Monsanto is making and trying to clear its replacement without missing a beat. They clearly know that the product downfall is inevitable. Aspartame has been banned in a few other countries because studies showed it not to be generally accepted as safe and at the very least the burden of proof needs to be placed on the industry pumping it out to fund independent peer reviewed studies (not holding or hiding “work product” that shows contrary results).
The past and present history of the FDA (or the AMA for that matter) and it’s ability to protect or warn the American public of the hazards in the food supply, drug supply, etc is very instructive.
Have we forgotten cigarettes, some toxic vaccinations (claimed safe), rBGH, and a whole host of other harmful at most and highly suspect in the least products? It took the AMA till the late eighties to discover and early nineties to admit/publish a relationship to diet and cancer(causal or preventative)! That’s at least 50 years after science (quacks as they were called) discovered the links. At the least one should get a “hint” of the problem from the fact that Aspartame remains at the top of the list of complaints the FDA receives. Action was taken much faster on it’s more easily replaced exitotoxin cousin MSG. MSG had a tiny market in comparison to Aspartame and had quick replacements.
The public has become lazy in watching it’s watchers and polemics stating that everything you eat is poison or begging the question about how could someone knowingly put something with longterm harmful effects on the market “somebody would surely blow a whistle”, or “Nobody is that evil” do a disservice to themselves and their readers. It’s easier to dismiss the possibility or arguments against Aspartame altogether than recognizing that we have a major problem with the fox running the chicken coup. (Republicans, Democrats and the like notwithstanding)
Don’t you know that the Consumerist has been invaded by astroturfers? People really aren’t this dumb.
Its time to stop drinking soda, but we need to address the public health.
Join us at [www.benzoicsoda.com]
@radleyas:
Me too!!! Seltzer with juice or seltzer alone is fantastic.
@MonkeyMonk: Splenda has not been approved by the FDA. Instead they have classified it as a food additive so they don’t have to. If you look it up on the net you will find that it is a pesticide and it is making a lot of people very ill. If I were to come up with a plot to “attack” an enemy country, what better than to come up with a product to make everything sweet with no calories? Everyone wanting to cheat calories would want it and they would put it in everything and assume that if it is in everything that it must be safe. But everything has a price. Oh, by the way, Splenda is made in China. Wonder where they make all of those other artificial sweatners?