MORE THAN
100 Studies
200 Scientists
90 Countries
... ALL SAYING THE SAME THING
For over four decades, the FDA has confirmed with six separate reviews that asparatme is safe for human consumption, most recently in 2018
ASPARTAME IS SAFE
ASN Sports
The Science of the
Safety of Aspartame
See the Science
IT'S NOT JUST THE VOLUME OF SCIENCE, IT'S THE QUALITY
RELIABLE SCIENCE
Systematically reviews all available data, the mechanism of action, and assesses human relevance
Makes statements that can be tested and verified by other scientists
Follows best practices and test guidelines at the time research was conducted
Is backed up by data that has convinced other experts, including regulatory risk assessment experts
Generally consistent with the weight-of-evidence or broad existing body of scientific knowledge
UNRELIABLE SCIENCE
Fails to convince the broader scientific community of its merits
Has findings that are not reproducible
Contains experimental flaws
Uses unrepresentative samples or studies with inadequate statistical power
Makes wide-reaching assertions that go beyond narrow findings
For over four decades, the FDA has confirmed with six separate reviews that aspartame is safe for human consumption, most recently in 2021.
This has also been confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, UK Food Standards Agency and Cancer Research UK, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, and top-tier academic research institutions like MIT, University of Kansas, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, and the University of Maryland.
Aspartame is Safe
University of Kansas
“The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue.”
“Data do not support the conclusions of Soffritti et al. (2007) that aspartame has carcinogenic potential at doses near the human level of exposure.”
University of Maryland
“Large daily doses of aspartame had no effect on neuropsychologic, neurophysiologic, or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults.”
MIT
Saint Louis University School
of Public Health
“Our review revealed little biologic or experimental evidence that aspartame is likely to act as a human brain carcinogen.
“The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue.”
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
“Data do not support the conclusions of Soffritti et al. (2007) that aspartame has carcinogenic potential at doses near the human level of exposure.”
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
“Large daily doses of aspartame had no effect on neuropsychologic, neurophysiologic, or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults.”
MIT
“Our review revealed little biologic or experimental evidence that aspartame is likely to act as a human brain carcinogen."
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
“Aspartame is one of the most exhaustively studied substances in the human food supply, with more than 100 studies supporting its safety. FDA scientists have reviewed scientific data regarding the safety of aspartame in food and concluded that it is safe for the general population under certain conditions.”
FDA
“Aspartame and its breakdown products have been the subject of extensive investigation for more than 30 years including experimental animal studies, clinical research, intake and epidemiological studies and post-marketing surveillance. It has been found to be safe and authorised for human consumption for many years and in many countries following thorough safety assessments.”
EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY
APRIL 2002 - NUTRASWEET, GRAYSTONE ASSOCIATES, UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG, BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
“Aspartame: Review of Safety”
-
“When the safety data for aspartame are evaluated as a whole, the weight of scientific evidence is clear that aspartame is safe for its intended uses, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety.”
2006 - UK COMMITTEE ON CARCINOGENICITY OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD, CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT (COC)
“Annual Report 2006”
-
“The committee agreed with the evaluation of the EFSA panel, which published its review of the data in July 2006, that this study did not indicate a need for a review of the ADI for aspartame.”
APRIL 2007 - U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
“FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study”
-
“FDA has completed its review concerning the long-term carcinogenicity study of aspartame entitled, 'Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats,' conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF), located in Bologna, Italy. FDA reviewed the study data made available to them by ERF and finds that it does not support ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen. Additionally, these data do not provide evidence to alter FDA's conclusion that the use of aspartame is safe.”
-
Referenced in FDA Internal Memo 1 and FDA Internal Memo 2
2007 - BURDOCK GROUP, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL SCHOOL, INSTITUTE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MADISON, OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE MEDICAL SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF SURREY & NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE
“Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies”
-
“The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.”
JUNE 2008 - UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK & NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE
“Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven”
-
“Data do not support the conclusions of Soffritti et al. (2007) that aspartame has carcinogenic potential at doses near the human level of exposure. The authors observed no significant effects at the low-diet level, and the actual dose is unknown.”
AUGUST 2008 - HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, AARP, IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON
“Added sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and beverages and the risk of pancreatic cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study”
-
"Neither regular soft drink nor diet soft drink had a significant trend towards greater risk of pancreatic cancer (Table 3).”
2009 - UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
“The recent Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis article ‘Evaluation of evidence for infection as a mode of action for induction of rat lymphoma’ by Caldwell et al. [2008] disputes that occurrence of ‘hemolymphoreticular tumors’ in rats was associated with Mycoplasma pulmonis disease in studies of aspartame [Soffritti et al., 2005, 2006] and methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) [Belpoggi et al., 1995, 1999] conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF). This article contains important inaccuracies concerning M. pulmonis disease, lymphoma in rats, and peer review of bioassays, and in our view its conclusions are untenable.”
JANUARY 2009 - EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY
“Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available from this ERF study and previous evaluations, that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg bw.”
JUNE 1980 - ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH UK
“The biological properties of aspartame. V. Effects on a variety of physiological parameters related to inflammation and metabolism”
-
“These results indicate that aspartame ingested in great excess would not be expected to significantly impair inflammatory processes nor influence carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.”
1981 - LIFE SCIENCES LABORATORIES, CENTRAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES, AJINOMOTO
“Toxicity of aspartame and its diketopiperazine for Wistar rats by dietary administration for 104 weeks”
-
Aspartame treatments incorporated in the diet of male and female Wistar rats were concluded to be “without toxic effect”
MARCH 1981 - LIFE SCIENCES LABORATORIES, CENTRAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES, AJINOMOTO
“Incidence of brain tumors in rats fed aspartame”
-
“There was no significant difference in the incidence of brain tumors between control and test groups. It is concluded that neither APM nor DKP caused brain tumors in rats in this study.”
JULY 1981 - U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The FDA “determined that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its proposed uses as a food additive.”
-
Included more than 100 studies supporting the safety of aspartame
JULY 1983 - U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
FDA approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, stating that the approval “is supported by more than 100 studies on the safety of aspartame.”
-
“Commissioner found that there was a reasonable certainty that aspartame: (1) Does not cause brain tumors in rats and (2) does not pose a risk of contributing to mental retardation, brain lesions, or undesirable effects on neuroendocrine regulatory systems in humans”
1984 - SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON FOOD
“During the 1980s, aspartame was authorised for use in foods and as a table-top sweetener by several EU Member States. European legislation harmonising its use in foodstuffs was introduced in 1994 following thorough safety evaluations by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1984.”
JANUARY 1994 - DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS, YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
“Aspartame, behavior, and cognitive function in children with attention deficit disorder”
-
“The findings indicate that aspartame at greater than 10 times usual consumption has no effect on the cognitive and behavioral status of children with attention deficit disorder.”
SEPTEMBER 1998 - CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTER, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
“Aspartame: neuropsychologic and neurophysiologic evaluation of acute and chronic effects”
-
“Large daily doses of aspartame had no effect on neuropsychologic, neurophysiologic, or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults.”
SEPTEMBER 2010 - UNIVERSITÉ DE LA MÉDITERRANÉE
“Links between private habits, psychological stress and brain cancer: a case–control pilot study in France”
-
“We found no significant effect of head trauma, aspartame, tobacco or alcohol consumption, place (rural or urban) of residence, sociodemographic data, and experience of psychological stress at work/home."
NOVEMBER 2010 - HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, HALL CONSULTING SERVICES, NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE, SPHERIX CONSULTING, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
“A review of mammalian carcinogenicity study design and potential effects of alternate test procedures on the safety evaluation of food ingredients”
DECEMBER 2013 - PALACKY UNIVERSITY
“Effects of artificial sweeteners on the AhR- and GR-dependent CYP1A1 expression in primary human hepatocytes and human cancer cells”
-
“Overall, aspartame, acesulfame, saccharin and cyclamate had no effects on CYP1A1 expression and transcriptional activities of AhR and GR. These data imply the safety of artificial sweeteners in terms of interference with AhR, GR and CYP1A1.”
2014 - U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
“Citizen Petition Denial Letter Response from FDA/CFSAN to Paul Stoller, MD”
-
“The safety of aspartame has been reviewed repeatedly, not only by FDA, but by other regulatory authorities, including those of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Europe, and Japan. All these authorities agree that aspartame is safe for the general population except for individuals with phenylketonuria. Despite your many assertions, you have not identified any scientific data or other information that would cause the agency to alter its conclusions about the safety of aspartame.”
MARCH 2017 - UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE UBERLÂNDIA, INSTITUTO DE GENÉTICA E BIOQUÍMICA, CAMPUS UMUARAMA & CENTRO UNIVERSITÁRIO DE PATOS DE MINAS
“Assessment of the carcinogenic potential of high intense-sweeteners through the test for detection of epithelial tumor clones (warts) in Drosophila melanogaster”
-
“In these experimental conditions, aspartame, sucralose, sodium saccharin and steviol glycoside have no carcinogenic effect in D. melanogaster.”
JANUARY 2019 - WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
“Association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners and health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized and non-randomised controlled trials and observational studies.”
-
This study commissioned by the World Health Organization found no association between aspartame and various cancers evaluated.
MARCH 2019 - INTERTEK & AJINOMOTO
““Histological analyses of the Ishii (1981) rat carcinogenicity study of aspartame and comparison with the Ramazzini Institute studies”
-
“There is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic in rats, at least to doses of 4 g/kg body weight/day administered over a 2-year period.”
APRIL 2019 - INTERTEK REGULATORY & SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANCY
“Systematic review and evaluation of aspartame carcinogenicity bioassays using quality criteria”
-
“As the Klimisch Code 2 studies demonstrated a lack of carcinogenic potential, and as aspartame is hydrolyzed to common components and lacks genotoxic activity, a conclusion that aspartame is not carcinogenic is supported.”
2007 - MEMORANDUM RE: CITIZEN PETITION DENIAL LETTER RESPONSE FROM FDA/CFSAN TO BETTY MARTINI
Studies show “no associations between the use of aspartame-based beverages and the occurrence of hematopoietic (including lymphomas and leukemias) or brain tumors”
Posted by FDA on Oct 19, 2022; Memo from: David Hattan, Ph.D. Senior Toxicologist, OFAS
UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) say it is safe to consume foods and beverages made with aspartame.
MAY 2022 - FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ)
“All scientific evidence to date supports the safety of aspartame for use as a sweetener.”
2020 - TOXSTRATEGIES, INC.
“Lack of potential carcinogenicity for aspartame – systematic evaluation and integration of mechanistic data into the totality of the evidence.”
-
"Consistent with previous evaluations focusing on human and animal cancer specific data, the mechanistic findings suggest aspartame is unlikely to be a human carcinogen."
AUGUST 2021 - TOXSTRATEGIES, INC.
“Overall lack of genotoxic activity among five common low- and no-calorie sweeteners: a contemporary review of the collective evidence.”
-
"The collective findings across these LNCS assessments are consistent with findings from recent systematic assessments of epidemiological data conducted by a WHO-commissioned Cochrane review, in which no differences between the use and non-use of non-sugar sweeteners and cancer were observed in non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies."
NOVEMBER 2022 - NUTRITION IMPACT LLC & UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
“No Association between Low-Calorie Sweetener (LCS) Use and Overall Cancer Risk in the Nationally Representative Database in the US: Analyses of NHANES 1988–2018 Data and 2019 Public-Use Linked Mortality Files
-
“There was no indication that aspartame, saccharin, or all LCS had any impact on overall cancer mortality.”
2023 - ELMOREPATHOLOGY, LLC AND COLLEAGUES
“Pathologists’ Perspective on the Study Design, Analysis and Interpretation of Proliferative Lesions in Lifetime and Prenatal Rodent Carcinogenicity Bioassays of Aspartame.”
-
"It is our opinion that the existing [Ramazzini Institute] bioassay data, analyses and interpretation provide neither compelling nor conclusive evidence that aspartame represents a carcinogenic hazard in rodents. By extension, this agent is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans."
2023 – GRADIENT
“The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews”
-
“Future reviews of aspartame consumption and cancer outcomes should evaluate study quality, and primarily focus on those study domains that are most likely to impact the interpretation of aspartame-specific results. Also, rather than tallying scores in individual quality domains to reach a total quality score or rating or giving a rating based on one quality domain, reviewers should consider whether, how, and to what degree any major specific study quality concerns would bias the study's results. If there is very low certainty in the evidence as a result of low study quality, reviewers should conclude that the evidence is inadequate for making a causal determination.”
2023 – UNIVERSDAD AUTONOMA DE YUCATAN, HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSIDAD MARISTA DE MERIDA
“Continuing the Conversation on Artificial Sweeteners and the Risk of Cancer: Results from the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study”
-
“Considering the relevance of this study and the well-deserved media coverage it has received, it is worth framing some declared and undeclared limitations.”
2023 – NINETY-SIXTH MEETING - JOINT FAO/WHO EXPERT COMMITTEE ON FOOD ADDITIVES (JECFA)
"Overall, the Committee concluded that the evidence of an association between aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing."
IT'S NOT JUST THE VOLUME OF SCIENCE, IT'S THE QUALITY
RELIABLE SCIENCE
Systematically reviews all available data, the mechanism of action, and assesses human relevance
Makes statements that can be tested and verified by other scientists
Follows best practices and test guidelines at the time research was conducted
Is backed up by data that has convinced other experts, including regulatory risk assessment experts
Generally consistent with the weight-of-evidence or broad existing body of scientific knowledge
UNRELIABLE SCIENCE
Fails to convince the broader scientific community of its merits
Has findings that are not reproducible
Contains experimental flaws
Uses unrepresentative samples or studies with inadequate statistical power
Makes wide-reaching assertions that go beyond narrow findings
