Perspectives on recent reviews of aspartame cancer epidemiology

Julie E Goodman; Denali N Boon; Maia M Jack

doi:10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100117

Perspectives on recent reviews of aspartame cancer epidemiology

Glob Epidemiol. 2023 Aug 3:6:100117. doi: 10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100117. eCollection 2023 Dec.

Authors

Julie E Goodman¹, Denali N Boon¹, Maia M Jack²

Affiliations

¹ Gradient, Boston, MA 02108, United States of America.
² American Beverage Association, Washington, DC 20004, United States of America.

Abstract

Aspartame is a dipeptide non-sugar sweetener that was first marketed in the US in carbonated beverages in 1983, before gaining prominence globally. The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) completed evaluations of aspartame and cancer in July 2023. JECFA reaffirmed the safety of aspartame, stating that epidemiology evidence is "not convincing," and that there are no consistent associations between aspartame and cancer (JECFA/IARC, 2023; JECFA, 2023). JECFA also noted "reverse causality, chance, bias and confounding by socioeconomic or lifestyle factors, or consumption of other dietary components, could not be completely ruled out" in relevant epidemiology studies (JECFA/IARC, 2023). In contrast, IARC stated that there are three "high quality" studies on liver cancer (Riboli, 2023), but that the evidence is limited because "chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out as an explanation for the positive findings" (JECFA/IARC, 2023). IARC does not provide an explanation as to how these studies can be both high quality and have these weaknesses, most notably potential exposure misclassification, or how inconsistent associations from studies with these weaknesses constitute limited evidence. Further, when IARC concludes an agent has limited or inadequate human evidence (and no sufficient animal or strong mechanistic evidence), it classifies that agent as either Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen, or Group 3, not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity. Ultimately, the interpretations of Group 2B and Group 3 classifications are intended to be similar. However, a Group 2B designation may make it appear to scientists and non-scientists alike that the evidence is pointing in the direction of causality. This can lead to unnecessary confusion with respect to the evidence, as well as a perception of a disagreement within WHO regarding aspartame. This apparent contradiction could have been avoided by assigning the IARC classification most consistent with the conclusion that the human evidence for cancer is inadequate: Group 3.