Sweeteners
The global market for aspartame – a common sweetener – shows no sign of slowing.
On the surface, there seems to be opposition between the FDA and the IARC/JECFA on the subject, which could be a cause for concern among consumers, who are increasingly looking for healthier alternatives to sugar. “Consumers are increasingly aware of the importance of shifting towards healthier diets and controlling daily sugar intake,” says Laurent Oger, the new director-general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA). “They perceive the benefits sweeteners can offer when used as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle. Consuming products with low or no-calorie sweeteners instead of sugar can result in lower energy intakes and help with lowering excess body weight.”
A phoney war
For its part, the ISA points out that the IARC is not a food safety body, and that aspartame is one of the most thoroughly researched ingredients in history, with over 90 food safety agencies across the globe declaring it safe, including the EFSA. “Like other food ingredients, aspartame is subject to continuous scrutiny, with safety questions being raised and answered over the years by food safety agencies,” says Oger. “Aspartame has been challenged over the years and numerous safety reviews have always reconfirmed its safety.” Going into the details of the IARC evaluation, Oger notes that the IARC is basing its classification on relatively few studies showing ‘limited’ evidence for a certain type of cancer. For three epidemiological studies, the IARC itself reported that chance, bias and confounding could not be ruled out, and three experimental animal studies have consistently been determined to be unreliable by evaluating bodies. “Furthermore, the IARC classification does not consider consumption levels nor actual risk, making an IARC review far less comprehensive than the thorough reviews conducted by food
84
safety bodies,” he adds. “It can indeed be confusing for consumers. IARC’s 2B classification puts aspartame in the same category as kimchi and other pickled vegetables, and IARC would be the first to say that they don’t suggest people should stop using kimchi at meals.”
So, is there really a big difference between the positions of the IARC, JECFA and FDA? When you look past the language, the answer is surely no. The IARC talks about risk, but Oger for one believes this distracts from the actual recommendations for the use of aspartame, which remain unchanged. Although statements from the IARC and FDA appear to be contradictory, a closer look at their stances shows that both recognise the limitations of the available evidence, and both accept that the available observational studies cannot establish a causal relationship between aspartame consumption and cancer.
One thing that is clearly agreed upon by all parties is that more research is needed. The EFSA’s scientists are currently re-evaluating the safety of two related food additives, the salt of aspartame- acesulfame (E 962) and neotame (E 961). The IARC and JECFA also noted in their statements that better studies with longer follow-up and repeated dietary questionnaires in existing cohorts are needed, as are randomised controlled trials, including studies of mechanistic pathways relevant to insulin regulation, metabolic syndrome and diabetes, particularly as related to carcinogenicity “There is a constant research effort, whether by the academic world or the private sector who want to propose new formulated products,” notes Oger. “Scientific research is a continuous process. Recommendations from IARC or other bodies are guiding the academic sector but also the industry in providing better quality and more thorough data that can clear uncertainties.” Ultimately, what might seem like a war of words is all smoke with no fire. ●
Ingredients Insight /
www.ingredients-insight.com
Tatjana Baibakova/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110
