Hidden costs of abandoning artificial sweeteners

Posted 8/17/23

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, an entity within the World Health Organization) recently announced that aspartame, a sugar substitute used in about 6,000 products worldwide, is …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Hidden costs of abandoning artificial sweeteners


The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, an entity within the World Health Organization) recently announced that aspartame, a sugar substitute used in about 6,000 products worldwide, is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because reports of this assessment have circulated for two weeks, after anonymous sources leaked it to the press. The leak triggered a heated debate among experts on the benefits and alleged risks of the widespread use of sugar substitutes, also known as non-nutritive sweeteners. This includes saccharin, sucralose, stevia, monk fruit and others, though IARC only evaluated aspartame.

For the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there is no debate about aspartame, one of the most common sugar substitutes in food items like dentist-preferred diet soda and some sugar free gum. The agency released a statement vehemently disagreeing with IARC’s classification and emphasizing that reviews conducted by its own scientists found no safety concerns.

“Aspartame being labeled by IARC as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ does not mean that aspartame is actually linked to cancer,” the agency said. “FDA scientists reviewed the scientific information included in IARC’s review in 2021 when it was first made available and identified significant shortcomings in the studies on which IARC relied.”

One reason for such a strong response is the FDA’s well-founded concerns that most people will interpret IARC’s announcement as saying that aspartame causes cancer. The FDA even acknowledged that navigating different information from health organizations is challenging for consumers.

It becomes even more difficult in light of the fact that IARC’s aspartame assessment does not consider risk or the likelihood of harm – merely hazard, which is only the potential for harm.

Yet everything in the physical world is a hazard. Take the sun: while some sunlight is necessary for good health and vitamin D, too much will cause a sunburn or even damage the DNA in our cells and cause cancer. Likewise, water is essential for life, but potentially fatal water poisoning called hyponatremia can occur if a person drinks too much.

For most things, there is always a level of exposure that has no effect on health and there is always a level of exposure that is harmful.

That’s how consumers can make sense of the fact that at the same time that of IARC’s announcement, another WHO committee affirmed that the approved daily intake levels for aspartame weren’t changing as a result of the new carcinogenic categorization.

It seems clear from FDA’s response that the agency considers IARC’s conclusion neither accurate nor helpful. IARC’s credibility frequently has been challenged in the past for their classification system being confusing to the general public and even scientists, as well for how they have conducted individual monographs.

In 2018, the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations even withheld funding (later restored) for IARC over concerns about irregularities and conflicts of interest in the agency’s glyphosate monograph.

For consumers, alphabet-soup agencies mean less than the practical question: if non-nutritive sweeteners were to fall out of use altogether, would our health be in a better or worse position?

The answer is obvious: We’d be in a worse place because of our relationship with sugar, which humans crave.

Dentists hold sugar in a kind of awe-struck horror. Sugar consumption feeds mouth bacteria, which produce as a by-product a form of acid that erodes tooth enamel. If left unchecked, this leads to dental cavities and oral disease. This is true even of healthier, more natural forms of sugar, such as the fructose found in fruit.

Non-nutritive sweeteners satiate our cravings for sweetness, while reducing the urge to consume large quantities of high-calorie, tooth decaying sugar. In the case of sugar free gum (SFG) – long recognized by dentists as a valuable oral health tool – these benefits are even more pronounced.

By stimulating the production of saliva through chewing, gum helps us to readjust the chemical balance of the mouth by producing minerals like calcium and phosphates. This “remineralization” process reverses damage caused by cavity-making acids, and reduces levels of plaque.

Research bears this out. One 2019 study by King’s College London found that people who regularly chew SFG develop about 28% fewer cavities than those who don’t – more so than for fluoride toothpaste.

More than just cavities, bad dental habits can create issues throughout the body. Gum disease and related conditions have been linked to a variety of broader health problems. Pneumonia can be caused by certain mouth bacteria getting pulled into the lungs. Endocarditis – an infection of the lining of the heart – can result from mouth bacteria traveling through the bloodstream. Some research links heart disease, clogged arteries and stroke to inflammation from oral bacteria.

Consequently, maintaining access to an inexpensive oral health support like sugar free gum could have an outsized effect on overall health. It’s clear that while aspartame’s link to cancer is unproven, the significant benefits of maintaining good oral health are worth chewing over.

An East Greenwich dentist, Melissa Weintraub is a mother and dentist who blogs at The Mommyhood Chronicles. She is a member of the American Dental Association.

sweetener, cancer, sugar


No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here