The assessment of the non-sugar sweetener aspartame has been released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).
The chemical is present in chewing gum, reduced sugar condiments, sugar-free jelly, yoghurts, cereal and frozen desserts.
IARC has classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans, citing “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity, while JECFA has confirmed that the acceptable daily intake level of 40mg/kg body weight will remain unchanged. There was also limited evidence that the chemical causes cancer in animals.
IARC placed aspartame at a group classification of 2B, the third of four levels. The classification is often used where there is limited but unconvincing evidence for either cancer in humans or cancer in animals.
Limited evidence
The group 2B classification is based on limited evidence tested for a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. According to WHO, “among the available cancer studies in humans, there were only three studies on the consumption of artificially sweetened beverages that allowed an assessment of the association between aspartame and liver cancer.” A positive association between consumption of chemically sweetened drinks and risk of liver cancer could be observed, but bias or confounding could not be ruled out as a reason for the positive association.
Jamie Cartwright, partner at City law firm Charles Russell Speechlys said: “Today’s review on aspartame reflects the clear divergence of thought that exists within the food safety and labelling space.
“The key lies in managing how any health implications are communicated in line with the of risk associated with the product, while being cautious not to dilute key messages that are necessary for consumer awareness. The ‘possible carcinogen’ classification is indicative of the mixed evidence suggesting a link, but the labelling requirement will likely have a profound impact for retailers selling the product, in terms of both the cost associated with the labelling regulations, as well as maintaining consumer confidence.
“It’s imperative that regulators strike the necessary balance between informative labelling and consumer confidence, so that individuals are empowered to make informed choices about the products they consume.”
