Will diet soda, yogurt, and cereal disappear from stores?

No, this is not a list of items someone needs to buy from the store. Instead, these are everyday products that individuals use and consume, such as diet soda, chewing gum, yogurt, and cereal. In these products, you may find the commonly used artificial sweetener known as aspartame.

This week, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization (WHO), has stated that aspartame may have the potential to cause cancer. Another committee within the WHO, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), has also examined aspartame independently and has not changed its previous recommendation. Instead, they suggest that people should not completely eliminate aspartame from their diets, but should limit their daily intake to approximately 40 mg per kilogram of body weight. This would mean that an adult weighing 60 kg (approximately 132 pounds) would have to consume around 12 cans of diet soda per day to exceed the JECFA's recommendation, assuming there are no other sources of aspartame in their diet.

To add to the confusion, the Food and Drug Administration offered a different perspective. In an email to Vox, they stated that they had examined the data used by the WHO for their evaluation and discovered notable deficiencies in the studies that were relied upon. The agency also emphasized that aspartame is extensively researched and one of the most studied additives in our food.

This situation can be quite perplexing for customers, leading many of us to wonder whether we should eliminate the numerous products containing the sweetener, be concerned about what we have already consumed, or simply take no action. Vox aimed to provide answers to some of the queries you may currently have.

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener, was first discovered in 1965 and gained widespread popularity in the US during the 1980s after receiving approval from the FDA. With increasing awareness about the negative effects of excessive sugar consumption and the rise of Type 2 diabetes and obesity rates in the US, people began seeking alternatives to sugar. Artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, became highly sought after for their low-calorie content in food and beverages. While aspartame was not the first artificial sweetener available (cyclamate and saccharin came before), those options were later banned due to concerns about their link to cancer. Presently, more than 5,000 products containing aspartame are sold in the US.

Understanding The WHO's Discoveries?

It would be understandable to assume that the WHO is implying that aspartame is generally safe to consume, as long as you don't exceed the recommended amount. Additionally, the fact that JECFA did not revise its suggested daily consumption further supports the notion that it's not a significant concern.

"When you label it as a 'potential cancer-causing agent,' consumers tend to focus on the word 'potential' and assume that it is not an immediate danger," explains Brian Ronholm, who is in charge of food policy at Consumer Reports. This organization conducts product tests, investigative journalism, and leads efforts to protect consumer rights.

The main point to consider from the WHO's finding, however, is that our understanding of the potential cancer risks associated with aspartame in humans is quite limited. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) based its assessment on merely three existing research studies, which examined the potential of aspartame to cause cancer in humans and indicated potential connections with liver cancer.

The IARC employs four classification levels for agents: Substances in Category 1 are labelled as cancer-causing in humans due to substantial evidence that they are carcinogens; Category 2A indicates that they probably cause cancer; Category 2B suggests that they might cause cancer; and Category 3 encompasses substances for which it is uncertain whether they pose a cancer risk. Tobacco, sulfur mustard (also referred to as mustard gas), and asbestos are all classified as Category 1. Aspartame falls under Category 2B. Other agents in Category 2B include aloe vera, talc-based body powder (which may contain asbestos), nickel, and safrole, a chemical found in flavoring used in root beer. The FDA prohibited the use of safrole in food back in 1960.

What truly matters for consumers is that the WHO's evaluation does not lead to any immediate actions. The responsibility of deciding how to respond lies in the hands of regulators, companies, and consumers themselves. Nonetheless, the evaluation should definitely cause concern, considering that the WHO's cancer research branch is a reliable source of information. Informed individuals informed Vox that a prohibition on aspartame in the United States is improbable in the near future, and it is also unlikely that food and beverage companies will promptly withdraw their products from sale.

This implies, obviously, that the decision to keep consuming Diet Coke, gnaw Trident Gum, devour sugar-free Jell-O, or ingest any of the numerous other edibles and beverages that utilize aspartame as an alternative to sugar, rests in the hands of each individual purchaser. Meanwhile, organizations concerned with safeguarding consumers have been suggesting avoiding aspartame, and the American Cancer Society is also advising to proceed with care.

"The understanding of this field is continuously developing, but we advise individuals to consider the recent report published by IARC as a moment for contemplation regarding their consumption of aspartame. It is also an occasion to assess their overall dietary habits, which should include an examination of their intake of processed meat and alcohol. These substances have been identified as known carcinogens, linked to an increased risk of cancer," expressed Dr. William Dahut, the chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, through a press release. He further emphasized that the organization "supports the IARC's plea for further investigation into aspartame and other artificial sweeteners."

Is Avoiding Aspartame Necessary?

It would be great if there was a straightforward solution.

"According to Ronholm, consumers are likely to feel perplexed and annoyed by the contradictory information. People who were already worried about aspartame and had significant doubts will most likely reconsider and reduce their intake. However, there will also be a group of individuals who will persist in consuming these drinks, believing that as nothing adverse has happened to them so far, there is no reason for concern."

Consumer activists are advising individuals to take caution in recognizing the extensive range of products that may contain aspartame. It is not limited to just carbonated beverages; low-sugar or sugar-free sweets, morning cereals, instant coffee, jelly-based items, and syrups can all incorporate this sweetening agent.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a group that watches over the interests of consumers and advocates for them, has been advising for quite some time that people should stay away from aspartame because it might be connected to cancer. Thomas Galligan, a leading scientist at the organization, expresses his worry about this issue and believes it should be a cause for alarm for consumers, the industry, and regulators.

Galligan advises customers to steer clear of it. "However, I must emphasize that customers should not replace aspartame with sugar. Traditional sugary beverages pose a larger threat to consumers' health compared to aspartame and other sugar substitutes." He suggests opting for products that include the organic sweetener stevia or, even better, opting for water instead.

Will My Soda Vanish From Shelves?

A lot of companies have surprisingly remained silent regarding the recent news. PepsiCo's chief financial officer stated to Reuters yesterday that the company currently has no intentions of altering their products. PepsiCo includes aspartame as an ingredient in Pepsi Zero Sugar, but it is not present in Diet Pepsi.

According to Ronholm, it is unlikely that there will be a ban on these products in the near future. The CSPI is urging companies to take IARC's evaluation seriously and modify their products, or at least offer more unsweetened options. However, both Galligan and Ronholm doubt that companies will actually do so. Ronholm states that he cannot imagine companies changing their products unless there is a significant negative reaction from consumers that results in a major decrease in demand. Companies are unlikely to be motivated to make changes because consumers may find the message from the WHO confusing and the FDA disagrees with its findings.

The food and drink sector, fully conscious that the IARC was investigating aspartame, has been on the back foot for some time. Representatives from the industry "had a meeting with the FDA around the middle of last year," states Galligan.

Galligan suggests that the beverage industry will persist in employing these strategies to undermine and cast doubt on this crucial discovery.

What Will FDA Do?

The FDA and IARC have different perspectives on the matter. However, this doesn't mean that the US agency won't take action if there is public and political pressure. Galligan refers to a federal law called the Delaney Clause. This clause, which is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, gives the FDA the power to require companies to test new food additives before they are sold. It explicitly prohibits the use of any chemical that has been proven to cause cancer. While the FDA can deem certain amounts of food additives safe in other cases, this clause enforces a policy of zero risk for additives that cause cancer in animals. According to Galligan, this clause could come into effect in this situation. However, he also explained that the FDA rarely reevaluates approved food additives, despite having the authority to do so.

According to him, it is his belief that when Congress enacted the food additive amendment in 1958, they explicitly stated that our food should not contain any trace of possible cancer-causing substances, likely cancer-causing substances, and so on.

As my colleague Keren Landman has previously detailed, the approval process of aspartame by the FDA has encountered various hurdles. Initially, its utilization was rejected, but later in 1981, it received approval despite apprehensions regarding its potential to induce brain tumors. Throughout the past few years, numerous scientists have cautioned about the potential hazard of cancer associated with its consumption. It is noteworthy that those who dismissed these concerns were frequently supported by organizations advocating for the interests of the food and beverage industry.

"Considering the lack of clarity in the scientific understanding of aspartame and the questionable assessment it underwent during its initial approval, Consumer Reports has consistently advised against consuming aspartame and will continue to advocate for caution," stated Ronholm.

He went on to say that despite the inclusion of different substances and enhancements, the FDA has generally shown reluctance in confronting problems. An investigation conducted by Politico in the previous year portrayed a slow and dysfunctional agency, especially regarding food safety. The investigation highlighted the food division's strong inclination to evade difficult decisions and their crippling fear of engaging in serious conflicts with the food industry.

Additionally, it is important to mention that the opinion of the FDA regarding aspartame is supported by regulatory authorities in various nations. Presently, more than 90 countries deem it acceptable and secure for consumption in food products.

Can Aspartame Still Impact Companies' Products?

According to experts interviewed by Vox, one way to prompt food and beverage companies to change their formulations or offer alternatives without aspartame is through consumer backlash. Talc, a mineral that may contain asbestos, provides an example of how this can work. In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified talc with asbestos as a Group 2B carcinogen, similar to its classification of aspartame. Although talc has not been banned by US regulators, numerous lawsuits from consumers eventually led Johnson & Johnson to voluntarily halt sales of their talc-based baby powder, starting with the US and Canada and extending worldwide. In response, many makeup brands have also followed suit and now promote their talc-free formulations as a selling point.

It is technically conceivable for individual states to take part as well. Recently, California passed a law prohibiting five "harmful food chemicals," including Red Dye No. 3. Although the FDA banned this dye in cosmetics many years ago, it remained permitted in food. Consumer Reports supported this legislation. Ronholm explains that the California bill was noteworthy because these five chemicals were already prohibited in other countries. Furthermore, the industry was able to discover alternative solutions to continue producing and exporting these products. Ronholm suggests that a comparable situation could occur in the United States, although he is not currently aware of any such initiatives.

According to Galligan, if other states were concerned about this matter and aimed to safeguard their residents against aspartame, it appears that they have the opportunity to take action in that regard.

In certain instances, an effective traditional legal action can force companies to halt the sale or alter the formulation of their products. Glyphosate, a type of pesticide, is classified by IARC as Group 2A, meaning it is considered a "likely carcinogen." Several countries, such as Germany, Austria, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia, have prohibited the use of this compound, but it remains legal in the United States. Although the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that glyphosate is "unlikely to cause cancer in humans," Bayer, the company that includes glyphosate in its weed killer Roundup, has been instructed to pay $10 billion to settle numerous lawsuits that assert glyphosate is linked to cancer. As a result, the company has decided to remove Roundup from stores this year.

Likewise, back in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized processed meat, such as bacon and hot dogs, as a Group 1 substance that can cause cancer. Consequently, in 2016, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) requested the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to mandate warning labels on processed meat. Unfortunately, their plea was rejected. As a direct result of the IARC's findings, the consumption of bacon and sausage drastically declined in the United Kingdom. Conversely, in the United States, the demand for processed meat remained robust.

Sadly, the subtlety surrounding IARC's evaluation of aspartame, and the contradiction with regulatory organizations such as the FDA, will probably persist, resulting in annoyance and bewilderment for customers. As for altering our intake, we are solely responsible.

Are you willing to back Vox's informative reporting?

Most media organizations generate revenue through advertisements or subscriptions. However, at Vox, relying on these methods poses a few challenges. Firstly, advertising profits fluctuate with the economy, making it difficult for us to plan for the future as we can only predict our revenue a few months ahead. Secondly, our goal at Vox is to ensure that everyone can understand the complexities of the world, regardless of their financial capacity to pay for a subscription. We believe this is crucial in fostering a more equal society, which is why we cannot have a paywall. Just as it is important for you to diversify your retirement portfolio to navigate the unpredictable stock market, we need multiple sources of income to support our mission. While advertising remains our primary revenue stream, we also seek grants and reader support. Regardless of how our work is funded, we strictly adhere to guidelines ensuring editorial independence. If you share our belief that everyone deserves access to reliable and high-quality information, we kindly ask you to consider making a contribution to Vox today. Every amount, no matter how small, makes a difference.

Absolutely, I am willing to contribute $120 annually.

Sure, I'll provide a sum of $120 annually.

We welcome payment methods such as credit cards, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. Additionally, you have the option to make contributions through other means.