Posted on 03/25/2022 6:11:02 AM PDT by Red Badger
Consuming artificial sweetener could increase the risk of developing cancer, a large-scale study suggested Thursday, but experts not involved in the research said it was not enough proof to consider changing current health advice.
Sweeteners are consumed by millions every day in products like diet soda, partly as a way to avoid weight gain from sugar – but how healthy these substitutes are themselves has long been a matter of controversy.
To assess the cancer risk of sweeteners, researchers analyzed the data of more than 100,000 people in France who self-reported their diet, lifestyle and medical history in intervals between 2009-2021 as part of the NutriNet-Sante study.
They then compared consumption to the rate of cancer, while adjusting for other variables such as smoking, poor diet, age and physical activity.
The participants who consumed the largest amount of sweeteners, "beyond the median amount, had an increased cancer risk of 13 percent compared to non-consumers," Mathilde Touvier, research director at France's INSERM institute and the study's supervisor, told AFP.
The study, published in the journal PLOS Medicine, said that a higher cancer risk was particularly seen with sweeteners aspartame and acesulfame potassium – both used in many soft drinks including Coke Zero.
Out of the 103,000 participants, 79 percent were women and 37 percent consumed artificial sweeteners.
Soft drinks accounted for more than half of the artificial sweeteners consumed, while table-top sweeteners represented 29 percent.
The study found that "higher risks were observed for breast cancer and obesity-related cancers".
Touvier said "we cannot totally exclude biases linked to the lifestyle of consumers", calling for further research to confirm the study's results.
The US National Cancer Institute and Cancer Research UK both say that sweeteners do not cause cancer, and they have been authorized for use by the European Food Safety Authority.
'Not proof'
"The relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and cancer risk is a controversial one, going back to the 1970s when (sweetener) cyclamate was banned for being linked to bladder cancer in rats – although this was never shown to be the case in humans," said James Brown, a biomedical scientist at Britain's Aston University.
Brown, who was not involved in the study, told AFP that it was "reasonably well-designed" and had an "impressive" sample size.
But he added he did not "believe the current study provides strong enough evidence" for Britain's National Health Service to "change its advice just yet".
Michael Jones of The Institute of Cancer Research, London said that the link reported in the study "does not imply causation" and was "not proof that artificial sweeteners cause cancer".
He said the findings could suggest that "cancer risk may be raised in the type of person who uses artificial sweetener rather than the sweetener itself."
Thursday's findings also do not mean consumers should rush back to sugary drinks – a 2019 NutriNet-Sante study found that they were also linked to a higher risk of several cancer types.
Brown said that not all sweeteners were equal, with some such as stevia showing health benefits.
Artificial sweeteners are "still likely a useful tool that can help reduce weight gain when replacing sugar – if the right sweetener is used," he said.
Artificial sweeteners are for people who think they’re helping their body and dieting.. like the person who only drinks diet soda but consumes 2 - 5 liters a day.
Artificial foods are bad period.
We’ve known this for years, but no one seems to pay attention. Couple of friends have died of brain cancer; both were devotees of several daily diet sodas. Good to see recent improvement in natural sweeteners (Stevia, monk fruit, etc)
What makes some studies controversial and others not in the eyes of the media?
Stevia gives me intense muscle pain-i looked it up and its a side effect.
I have given up diet soda after a 50 year habit.
Caffeine too.
Well, then: Based upon those numbers and recent history, we should bar the use of artificial sweeteners, censor those who spread ‘misinformation’, revoke the licenses of rogue medical practitioners, and impose restrictions upon those who are not ‘artificial sweetener-free’.
/s
>> Out of the 103,000 participants, 79 percent were women <<
Hrmm... That’s odd. Also odd: no concern about WHICH artificial sweetener. People usually have a preference.
I drink Diet Coke all day every day and have since it appeared on the scene in 1984(iirc). I love caffeine and Diet Coke. Stuff happens and ones own genetics play a giant roll in our future health.
Aspartame never got approved by the FDA until Donald Rumsfeld stepped in and forced its approval with fake data because $$$$$.
https://rumble.com/vpp522-the-ugly-truth-about-aspartame.html
https://rielpolitik.com/2021/07/04/food-fraud-the-sweet-stevia-conspiracy-by-tom-theimer/
My Grandma used to drink TAB and Fresca by the gallon. She never got cancer, but was pretty batty at the end. ;)
Glad I never liked soda. Still don’t.
If I need a sweetener, I use Stevia.
>>Also odd: no concern about WHICH artificial sweetener. People usually have a preference.
Perhaps, if people are consciously adding the sweetener to, say, coffee or tea.
But for those who drink it in diet soft drinks, they may not pay any attention to exactly which sweetener is being used. Hey, it’s diet, lo-cal, what else do you need to know?
“Thursday’s findings also do not mean consumers should rush back to sugary drinks – a 2019 NutriNet-Sante study found that they were also linked to a higher risk of several cancer types.”
Caramel color seems to be the common link, here. You know how they say browned steak is bad for you? The Maillard reaction, which causes browning, gives off loads of different chemical byproducts, many of which are supposedly carcinogenic. The same reaction occurs in browning bread, fries, and marshmallows. Caramel color is the product of browning sugar, but I’ll admit I’m not sure if the baddies require the presence of amino acids absent in pure sugar. I understand that California’s labeling laws led some U.S. manufacturers to change the way they make caramel color, but I don’t know if this was done in France.
I’ve recently become GI intolerant of sorbitol as well which is really unfortunate since I used to be able to chew Extra all day and now even a few minutes of the stuff causes bloating for days. Strange. Erythritol is probably the safest sugar alcohol but too expensive for all but Whole Foods gum makers.
My younger sister guzzled diet soda. She’s been gone for four years
Breast cancer
One of my relatives recently died of bladder cancer at age 50.
He drank Mountain Dew morning, day and night - gallons of it - the only thing he ever drank. Not sure if it were the “diet” version or not.
My family strongly suspects this is the reason he got bladder cancer - and after he died, his oncologist said the same thing.
Dr. Blaylock has published some interesting information about Stevia - he says there are conflicting data showing it can cause problems in the frontal lobes of the brain - but other studies that show it is harmless.
He does not recommend it at this time.
It has an off-taste to me - I’ve learned to live without sweeteners of any type for at least 10 years.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.........................
>> But for those who drink it in diet soft drinks, they may not pay any attention to exactly which sweetener is being used. Hey, it’s diet, lo-cal, what else do you need to know? <<
There’s a reason there are 70 varieties of dietetic Coke. Everyone has their preferred flavors. For instance, “saccharine” has become a word for unpalatable sweetness, yet loads of people kill for its distinctive taste, but it no longer is used in Diet Coke.
In this case, “controversial” means “useless, but we’re going to run with it anyway.” Saccharine? Aspartame, Acesulphamine, who cares?
If you were designing a study to demonstrate that something was dangerous, wouldn’t you make sure everyone in the non-control group were using it? If for nothing else to prevent watering down your results? But if you know your methodology will produce false positives and you’re fishing for headlines, hey, why not worry as many people as possible?
Step away from the soda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.