Histological analyses of the Ishii (1981) rat carcinogenicity study of aspartame and comparison with the Ramazzini Institute studies

Non-sugar sweeteners and cancer: Toxicological and epidemiological evidence

Several toxicological and epidemiological studies were published during the last five decades on non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and cancer. Despite the large amount of research, the issue still continues to be of interest. In this review, we provided a comprehensive quantitative review of the toxicological and epidemiological evidence on the possible relation between NSS and cancer. The toxicological section includes the evaluation of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data for acesulfame K, advantame, aspartame, cyclamates, saccharin, steviol glycosides and sucralose. The epidemiological section includes the results of a systematic search of cohort and case-control studies. The majority of the 22 cohort studies and 46 case-control studies showed no associations. Some risks for bladder, pancreas and hematopoietic cancers found in a few studies were not confirmed in other studies. Based on the review of both the experimental data on genotoxicity or carcinogenicity of the specific NSS evaluated, and the epidemiological studies it can be concluded that there is no evidence of cancer risk associated to NSS consumption.

Updated systematic assessment of human, animal and mechanistic evidence demonstrates lack of human carcinogenicity with consumption of aspartame

Aspartame has been studied extensively and evaluated for its safety in foods and beverages yet concerns for its potential carcinogenicity have persisted, driven primarily by animal studies conducted at the Ramazzini Institute (RI). To address this controversy, an updated systematic review of available human, animal, and mechanistic data was conducted leveraging critical assessment tools to consider the quality and reliability of data. The evidence base includes 12 animal studies and >40 epidemiological studies reviewed by the World Health Organization which collectively demonstrate a lack of carcinogenic effect. Assessment of >1360 mechanistic endpoints, including many guideline-based genotoxicity studies, demonstrate a lack of activity associated with endpoints grouped to key characteristics of carcinogens. Other non-specific mechanistic data (e.g., mixed findings of oxidative stress across study models, tissues, and species) do not provide evidence of a biologically plausible carcinogenic pathway associated with aspartame. Taken together, available evidence supports that aspartame consumption is not carcinogenic in humans and that the inconsistent findings of the RI studies may be explained by flaws in study design and conduct (despite additional analyses to address study limitations), as acknowledged by authoritative bodies.

Pathologists' perspective on the study design, analysis, and interpretation of proliferative lesions in lifetime and prenatal rodent carcinogenicity bioassays of aspartame

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly used as a sugar substitute, is currently authorized for use in more than 100 countries. Hundreds of studies, conducted in various countries dating back to the 1970s, have shown that aspartame is safe at real-world exposure levels. Furthermore, multiple human epidemiology studies have provided no indication that consumption of aspartame induces cancer. Given the continued controversy surrounding the Ramazzini Institute's (RI) studies suggesting that aspartame is a carcinogenic hazard in rodents and evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, this report aims to provide the perspective of experienced pathologists on publicly available pathology data regarding purported proliferative lesions in liver, lung, lymphoid organs, and mammary gland as well as their implications for human risk assessment as reported for three lifetime rodent carcinogenicity bioassays of aspartame conducted at the RI. In the authors' view, flaws in the design, methodology and reporting of the RI aspartame studies limit the utility of the data sets as evidence that this agent represents a carcinogenic hazard. Therefore, all three RI studies, and particularly the accuracy of their pathology diagnoses and interpretations, should be rigorously reviewed by qualified and experienced veterinary toxicologic pathologists in assessing aspartame's carcinogenic risk.

Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The food industry uses artificial sweeteners in a wide range of foods and beverages as alternatives to added sugars, for which deleterious effects on several chronic diseases are now well established. The safety of these food additives is debated, with conflicting findings regarding their role in the aetiology of various diseases. In particular, their carcinogenicity has been suggested by several experimental studies, but robust epidemiological evidence is lacking. Thus, our objective was to investigate the associations between artificial sweetener intakes (total from all dietary sources, and most frequently consumed ones: aspartame [E951], acesulfame-K [E950], and sucralose [E955]) and cancer risk (overall and by site).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Overall, 102,865 adults from the French population-based cohort NutriNet-Santé (2009-2021) were included (median follow-up time = 7.8 years). Dietary intakes and consumption of sweeteners were obtained by repeated 24-hour dietary records including brand names of industrial products. Associations between sweeteners and cancer incidence were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, body mass index, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, and baseline intakes of energy, alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fibre, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products. Compared to non-consumers, higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners (i.e., above the median exposure in consumers) had higher risk of overall cancer (n = 3,358 cases, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.25], P-trend = 0.002). In particular, aspartame (HR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.28], P = 0.002) and acesulfame-K (HR = 1.13 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.26], P = 0.007) were associated with increased cancer risk. Higher risks were also observed for breast cancer (n = 979 cases, HR = 1.22 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.48], P = 0.036, for aspartame) and obesity-related cancers (n = 2,023 cases, HR = 1.13 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.28], P = 0.036, for total artificial sweeteners, and HR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.32], P = 0.026, for aspartame). Limitations of this study include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort study, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), which are used in many food and beverage brands worldwide, were associated with increased cancer risk. These findings provide important and novel insights for the ongoing re-evaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies globally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.

Considerations for refining the risk assessment process for formaldehyde: Results from an interdisciplinary workshop

Anticipating the need to evaluate and integrate scientific evidence to inform new risk assessments or to update existing risk assessments, the Formaldehyde Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), in collaboration with the University of North Carolina, convened a workshop: "Understanding Potential Human Health Cancer Risk - From Data Integration to Risk Evaluation" in October 2017. Twenty-four (24) invited-experts participated with expertise in epidemiology, toxicology, science integration and risk evaluation. Including members of the organizing committee, there were 29 participants. The meeting included eleven presentations encompassing an introduction and three sessions: (1) "integrating the formaldehyde science on nasal/nasopharyngeal carcinogenicity and potential for causality"; (2) "integrating the formaldehyde science on lymphohematopoietic cancer and potential for causality; and, (3) "formaldehyde research-data suitable for risk assessment". Here we describe key points from the presentations on epidemiology, toxicology and mechanistic studies that should inform decisions about the potential carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in humans and the discussions about approaches for structuring an integrated, comprehensive risk assessment for formaldehyde. We also note challenges expected when attempting to reconcile divergent results observed from research conducted within and across different scientific disciplines - especially toxicology and epidemiology - and in integrating diverse, multi-disciplinary mechanistic evidence.