The vast majority of scientists and public health authorities believe that the main artificial sweeteners are security, as long as they are consumed in reasonable amounts (see the table of acceptable daily intakes, in the text What are they?).

Sweeteners, like food additives in general, are under “constant surveillance” internationally. A committee of experts fromWorld Health Organization (WHO) andFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) regularly publishes detailed reports on this subject and updates a monograph, including a toxicological assessment, for each of these food additives^1,2.

An important clarification: the list of “approved” sweeteners, and therefore recognized as being safe, varies according to the regulations specific to each country. Alitame, for example, is used in Mexico, Australia, and China, but not in the United States and Canada. And even between these two countries, important differences remain. For example, neotame, a close cousin of aspartame, was approved in 2002 in the United States and only five years later in Canada.

Why such a long lapse of time? Because in Canada food additives, including sweeteners, are subject to the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations³ and that each “new” sweetener must be approved by Health Canada.

The Federal Ministry has approved the use of several sweeteners, including aspartame, acesulfame-potassium and sucralose. Saccharin and cyclamate remain special cases. They can be sold as a tabletop sweetener, but not used as a food additive. In short: they are found in tablets, but never in processed foods. According to Health Canada, all these products are therefore safe, within the limits of use prescribed by law.

Much research has been done on the safety of sweeteners. Some studies have looked at the neurotoxic potential of aspartame. However, in the case of aspartame as in that of other sweeteners, it is their possible carcinogenic effect that has mainly caught the attention of scientists.

In 2004, a meta-analysis based on nearly fifty preliminary studies, clinical trials and epidemiological research, took stock of this question.⁴. Researchers’ conclusion: according to the current scientific literature, the possibility that artificial sweeteners, in general, can constitute a risk factor for cancer seems… negligible.

When it comes to the controversial first-generation sweetener aspartame, researchers are adamant, even contemptuous of its critics. “Despite unscientific articles published in the mass media and the scientific press, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic,” they write.⁴.

In fact, the only sweetener clearly pointed out by the authors of this meta-analysis is saccharin. And still it is necessary to qualify; this substance caused bladder cancer in rats that had consumed high doses of it. No human research has established such a link.

The notion of “high dose” takes on its full meaning here. These scientists noted a few case studies associating bladder cancer, in humans this time, with a very high consumption of artificial sweeteners, ie 1,7 g / day. (See table in the article What are they?). But what sweeteners are these? Impossible to determine with precision, allege the researchers. As processed products often contain a combination of sweeteners, this effect cannot be attributed to any one substance.

This meta-analysis also raises the whole problem of the current limits of science. The researchers thus specify that the absence of epidemiological studies on second-generation sweeteners does not make it possible to comment on their potential carcinogenic effect. In other words, the use of these sweeteners is too recent to assess their long-term effects.

Should we conclude, as the vast majority of scientists and public health authorities do, that synthetic sweeteners are safe? Or, like some detractors, that our knowledge is insufficient to allow us to properly assess the real risk?

In June 2005, the health authorities of countries having approved the use of aspartame were on high alert. Italian research published in the European Journal of Oncology reveals that at doses equivalent to those ingested by humans, aspartame caused an increase in the frequency of lymphomas and leukemia in rats⁵.

Scientists from Health Canada, the American National Cancer Institute, as well as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an agency of the European Union, then examine the results of the study. They conclude, in 2006, that there is no link between cancer and aspartame or that there is no need to revise the regulations governing the use of aspartame.^{6, 7, 8}.

Health Canada is still continuing its analysis based on the raw data from this study. But for EFSA, the subject is now closed: “On the basis of all the available evidence, there is no reason to continue to reassess the safety of aspartame, nor to review the daily dose” .

This episode reflects the heated controversy surrounding the use of aspartame since its introduction to the market in 1981. In fact, voices have been raised against its use since the 1970s following the publication. early studies indicating a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in laboratory animals.

For 30 years, we have not ceased to question the safety of aspartame. In addition to its carcinogenic potential, it is accused of being neurotoxic, that is to say of causing a slew of neurological disorders ranging from a simple headache to epileptic seizures, including attention deficit disorder in the children.

Studies and counter-studies have accumulated on the subject. What you must remember? Scientific studies that questioned the safety of aspartame were subsequently analyzed by various health authorities and other independent scientists. Health Canada, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, the World Health Organization (WHO), to name a few, have rejected the findings of this research.

For example, in 1996, an epidemiological study linked the introduction of aspartame to the market and an increased incidence of brain tumors in the United States.⁹. Hence the bad reputation of aspartame.

However, the methodology, the use of the data as well as their interpretation have been severely criticized by many researchers and public bodies in the weeks, months and years since the publication of this research.¹⁰.

No subsequent study has supported the conclusions of this epidemiological study. Today, both researchers and public health authorities reject the thesis of the neurotoxicity of aspartame.

Safe, aspartame? The conclusion of the authors of a comprehensive review¹¹ published in 2002 sums up the state of mind of several scientists. “No food additive has been the subject of as much research on its safety as aspartame. […] It is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no more unanswered questions about its safety, under the recommended conditions of use, ”they say.

Aspartame remains a controversial substance, even hated by its detractors. A lot of information is circulating about it on the Internet. There are, in particular, many testimonials from people who claim that their serious health problems disappeared after they stopped consuming aspartame.

An American doctor, H. J. Roberts, maintains that he has in hand a database of 1 cases demonstrating the toxicity of this sweetener, especially on the nervous system.¹². He has noted an abnormally high rate of headaches in aspartame users and believes that this substance may be responsible for brain tumors. The specialist, now retired, is considered one of the main figures of the anti-aspartame movement.

Proven safety

Isabelle Galibois, professor, Department of Food Sciences, Laval University“These products have been examined and re-examined from all angles. Their safety has been well established. In a hundred years, will we realize that we were wrong? Sucralose is not even absorbed by the body, so it would be really surprising if we discovered one day that it filled cemeteries … For aspartame, it is true to say that methanol (Editor’s note: generated by metabolism of aspartame in the body) is toxic. But it’s so low dose! Certain foods naturally contain much more than products sweetened with aspartame […].

Some things are much riskier than sweeteners. We only have to look at what people consume as supplements, natural products, medicines, and even as food… Food often contains undeclared contaminants, agricultural residues. There are lots of things we eat without knowing it! How many other additives do we consume without realizing it? Dyes, for example. I am much more critical of colorants than sweeteners. They are only aesthetic, they are useless. “

The precautionary principle

Hélène Baribeau, dietitian-nutritionist in private practice: “It’s like eating organic. It has not been proven to be better for your health! There is no evidence that there are more vitamins in these products and that you can live longer. But for some people, it’s important to eat “with integrity”, to eat “real” foods. We are “biology” so we put into our bodies what exists in nature, which is organic. […]

Aspartame, I don’t like it. I wouldn’t necessarily be afraid for my quality of life if I consumed aspartame, but it is a matter of principle. It cannot be explained scientifically. Even if it has been shown to be harmless, for me, it remains a substance foreign to the body […]. This is less the case with sucralose, a modified sugar, yes, but whose base, at least, is a real sugar. The body will degrade it better […].

Scientists have a process: they look at studies and draw conclusions. But there are also personal beliefs that must be respected. We can also rely on common sense in life. “