Rafael Urrialde de Andrés
Professor at the Faculty of Biological Sciences of the Complutense University of Madrid and at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the San Pablo-CEU University, and member of the Board of Directors of the Spanish Society of Nutrition
The WHO press conference on Wednesday 12 July, which I attended, could at the very least be classified as very surprising: different positions of IARC and JECFA on the scientific evidence, although in both cases they indicate that it is limited and not convincing. JECFA stresses that the evidence on cancer risk in animal and human studies is not convincing to establish a link between aspartame consumption and cancer.
Let us hope that the rest of the food safety and nutrition agencies and authorities of countries worldwide or regions such as the European Union also adopt positions that do not generate these scaremongering, clear and convincing risk assessments: the European Food Safety Authority, Food Drug Agency of the USA, Food Standards Agency of Australia New Zealand, Canadian Institute of Food Safety, Food Standards Agency of the UK, Norwegian Food Safety Authority, Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority, Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office of Switzerland, Comisión Federal para la Evaluación de Riesgos sanitarios de México, Canadian Institute of Food Safety, Food Safety Commission of Japan, etc.
In the 1990s, the constitution of food safety agencies was clearly requested to avoid what happened yesterday [at the press conference], in this case, with aspartame, because if it is classified as 2B, possibly carcinogenic by IARC, either the ADI [acceptable daily intake] is lowered by JECFA or it is withdrawn; if the ADI is maintained by JECFA and other food safety agencies and authorities worldwide due to lack of scientific evidence, alarmism should not be generated. I cannot imagine an institution such as the WHO saying that a drug poses a risk and the agencies or drug approval authorities saying otherwise, as they are the ones who really evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs.
On the other hand, maintaining the ADI of 40 mg/kg person/day, this means a consumption of 2,800 mg of aspartame. The calculations given by the WHO at the press conference are surprising because, using food composition tables, it would not mean 10 cans of soft drink, as they said, but approximately 15, based on the premise of an amount of around 50 mg of aspartame per 100 ml of food product. Furthermore, with this ADI, I repeat that according to JEFCA it is not necessary to modify it, it could mean for a 70 kg adult to consume all of the following products in a single day: 2 servings of alcoholic mixed drinks, 8 teaspoons of cocoa powder, 2 low-calorie beers, 5 chewing gums, 5 teaspoons of table sweeteners, 2 servings of canned fruit or vegetables, 2 servings of sugar-free gelatine,3 yoghurts or fermented milks, 2 portions of jam, 2 glasses of nectars, 2 juice-based soft drinks, 3 portions of chocolate, 3 soft drinks with or without added sugars or added sugars, dabs of sauces, 2 tea drinks and 2 drinkable yoghurts.
However, it should be noted that at the press conference it was also stated, surprisingly, that for a child weighing 20 kg, the aspartame intake would be 800 mg. In this case, as in the case of pregnant women, elderly people or those who have a physiological problem or illness other than phenylketonuria and who should not consume aspartame because of the phenylalanine content, the WHO should be more cautious, If they are classifying it through the IARC as 2B (possibly carcinogenic), they should have indicated that children, as well as the aforementioned persons, should abstain from consuming aspartame, as the degree of protection, as also taken into account by the JEFCA for the determination of the IDAS, would be much higher. In this respect, it should also be pointed out that the data provided yesterday by the WHO were not in line with reality, as 800 mg of aspartame is not equivalent to 2-4 cans of soft drinks, but to 5-6 cans of soft drinks, or the equivalent of consuming the following products in one day: 2 yoghurts or fermented milks, 2 portions of chocolate, 5 teaspoons of cocoa powder, 2 portions of jam, 2 glasses of nectars and 2 glasses of fruit-based drinks.
It is essential to launch in vivo studies in humans and to clearly determine the degree of exposure to sweeteners in general and aspartame, sucralose and saccharin in particular, due to the risk of cancer or their possible impact on the intestinal microbiota.
On the other hand, it should be pointed out once again that low- or no-calorie sweeteners are additives that serve to reduce or eliminate the amount of sugar, but for the control and reduction of overweight and obesity, as well as other pathologies, the total diet should be taken into account, because a single food product or a single ingredient or additive can have its effect cancelled out by the effect of the other foods and drinks in the diet. Likewise, the use of low- or no-calorie sweeteners should not be generalised and should not start to be incorporated, as is being done, in food products that did not even have sugar before and to which now, for whatever reason, they want to give or add sweetness.