Do Artificial Sweeteners Really Cause Cancer? The Aspartame Controversy

Abstract

Purpose: This secondary research paper aims to critically synthesize the scientific literature regarding the alleged link between artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame, and cancer development. It specifically examines the public health implications of the ongoing aspartame controversy, with a focus on consumption patterns, regulatory responses, and public perception within diverse African contexts.

Findings: The review indicates that major international food safety and health organizations (e.g., WHO, FDA, EFSA, JECFA) have consistently affirmed the safety of aspartame within acceptable daily intake (ADI) levels, based on extensive toxicological and epidemiological data. However, recent classifications by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) have reignited public debate and concern. In Africa, consumption of artificial sweeteners is rising, often through imported processed foods and beverages, but also increasingly in locally produced items. Challenges include varied national regulatory capacities, potential for misinformation, and the need for clear public health communication tailored to diverse literacy levels and cultural contexts.

Research Limitations/Implications: As a secondary research paper, its findings are based on the synthesis of existing published literature and may be subject to the limitations of the original studies, which might vary in methodology, sample size, and generalizability. A significant limitation is the scarcity of specific data on aspartame consumption patterns and related health outcomes within the diverse African populations. Future primary research, including dietary surveys and epidemiological studies on artificial sweetener intake and health effects in various African countries, is recommended to provide more localized evidence. The implications highlight the critical need for robust national food safety surveillance, harmonized regional regulations, and effective public health education campaigns.

Practical Implications: For consumers, the paper provides an evidence-based perspective on aspartame’s safety profile, emphasizing moderation within recommended limits. For healthcare providers, it offers a summary of scientific consensus to guide patient counseling on dietary choices. For policymakers and food regulatory bodies in Africa, it underscores the importance of staying abreast of international scientific evaluations, strengthening national food safety frameworks, and developing clear communication strategies to manage public concerns and ensure food security.

Social Implications: The aspartame controversy can erode public trust in scientific institutions and food safety authorities, potentially leading to unhealthy dietary choices based on misinformation. This erosion of trust is particularly concerning when different scientific bodies, even with distinct mandates, appear to offer conflicting conclusions, as seen with IARC’s hazard identification and JECFA’s risk assessment. Such perceived inconsistencies can fuel skepticism, making the public more vulnerable to misinformation disseminated through social media and informal channels. In the African context, where health literacy levels may vary and traditional beliefs can influence health decisions, the spread of inaccurate information about food additives can have particularly detrimental effects. It might lead consumers to abandon products with artificial sweeteners for higher-sugar alternatives, inadvertently increasing their risk of non-communicable diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes, which are already on the rise across the continent. Therefore, effective communication and transparent regulatory actions are essential to maintain public confidence and promote informed decision-making regarding food additives. This involves clear, consistent messaging from national health authorities, proactive engagement with communities, and demonstrating a commitment to public safety through robust food surveillance and regulation. By fostering trust and ensuring accessible, accurate information, public health bodies can guide dietary trends towards healthier outcomes and safeguard the well-being of populations across the continent.

Originality/Value: This paper offers a timely and focused synthesis of the aspartame-cancer controversy, uniquely framed within the African context. It bridges the gap between global scientific discourse and local public health realities, providing a valuable resource for researchers, public health practitioners, food industry stakeholders, and policymakers navigating complex food safety issues in the region.

Keywords: Artificial sweeteners, Aspartame, Cancer risk, Carcinogenicity, Public health, Food safety, Regulatory science, African diet, Non-nutritive sweeteners, Epidemiology, Toxicology, Consumer perception, Health policy, Food regulation Africa, Food additives, Sweetener safety, IARC classification, JECFA evaluation

1. Introduction

In an era increasingly focused on health and wellness, consumers worldwide are seeking alternatives to traditional sugar, driven by concerns about obesity, diabetes, and dental health. Artificial sweeteners, also known as non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), have emerged as popular substitutes, offering sweetness with minimal or no caloric content. Among these, aspartame stands as one of the most widely used and extensively studied food additives globally, found in a vast array of products from diet sodas and chewing gum to yogurts and pharmaceuticals (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2023). However, despite its widespread approval by regulatory bodies for decades, aspartame has been a subject of persistent public controversy, particularly regarding its alleged link to cancer.

The debate surrounding aspartame’s safety reached a new peak in July 2023 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This classification, while distinct from a definitive statement on cancer causation, ignited widespread media attention and renewed public concern, prompting questions about the safety of everyday food products. Simultaneously, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), another WHO body responsible for risk assessment, reaffirmed its acceptable daily intake (ADI) for aspartame, stating that there was “no convincing evidence” of harm within that limit (WHO, 2023a). This apparent divergence in conclusions from two WHO-affiliated bodies added to the confusion.

For the African continent, the aspartame controversy carries significant public health implications. As urbanization and globalization accelerate, African dietary patterns are shifting, with an increasing consumption of processed foods and beverages, many of which contain artificial sweeteners (Popkin et al., 2012). While the immediate focus of food safety concerns in Africa often revolves around microbial contamination or foodborne illnesses, the long-term effects of food additives like aspartame on a population already grappling with a rising burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, varying national regulatory capacities, potential for rapid spread of misinformation, and diverse levels of health literacy present unique challenges in communicating complex scientific findings to the public.

This paper, through a comprehensive secondary research approach, aims to critically review the scientific evidence surrounding the alleged link between artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame, and cancer risk. It will delve into the methodologies and findings of key epidemiological and toxicological studies, as well as the assessments of major international regulatory bodies. Crucially, the paper will maintain a deliberate and detailed focus on the African context, exploring consumption patterns, the regulatory landscape, and the challenges of public health communication. By synthesizing current literature, this paper seeks to provide an evidence-based perspective for consumers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and food industry stakeholders navigating the complexities of food safety and public health in Africa.

2. Literature Review: The Science Behind Aspartame and Cancer Allegations

Aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). It is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. Upon digestion, it breaks down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and a small amount of methanol (Magnuson et al., 2007). Its widespread use stems from its intense sweetness, low caloric value, and relatively clean taste profile compared to some other artificial sweeteners.

2.1 Historical Context and Regulatory Approval

Aspartame was discovered in 1965 and first approved for use in food products by the U.S. FDA in 1974. However, its approval was met with controversy, including allegations of flawed research and potential health risks, particularly regarding brain tumors. These concerns led to a temporary halt in its approval. Following extensive reviews and additional studies, the FDA reaffirmed its safety and granted broader approval in the 1980s (FDA, 2023). Since then, major regulatory bodies worldwide, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Health Canada, and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), have conducted numerous comprehensive safety assessments, consistently concluding that aspartame is safe for human consumption within established acceptable daily intake (ADI) levels (EFSA, 2013; JECFA, 1981). The ADI for aspartame is typically set at 40 mg/kg body weight per day in Europe and 50 mg/kg body weight per day in the U.S. (WHO, 2023b).

2.2 Epidemiological Studies on Aspartame and Cancer

Epidemiological studies investigate patterns and causes of disease in human populations. Several large-scale cohort studies and case-control studies have examined the association between aspartame intake and various cancers:

• Brain Tumors: Early concerns focused on brain tumors. However, large prospective cohort studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, found no association between aspartame intake and the risk of brain tumors (Lim et al., 2006).
• Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Myeloma: Some studies, notably those by the Ramazzini Institute, reported increased risks of certain cancers (leukemia, lymphoma) in rats exposed to aspartame, even at doses within human ADI (Soffritti et al., 2005; Soffritti et al., 2007). These findings have been a major source of controversy and have been critically reviewed by regulatory agencies, who largely dismissed them due to methodological concerns (EFSA, 2013).
• Other Cancers: More recent large-scale human studies, such as the French NutriNet-Santé cohort, have investigated associations with various cancers. While some initial findings suggested a possible link between higher intake of artificial sweeteners (including aspartame) and increased cancer risk overall, particularly breast cancer and obesity-related cancers, these studies often acknowledge limitations, including potential for residual confounding and reverse causation (Debras et al., 2022). These findings are considered hypothesis-generating and require further confirmation.

Overall, the consensus from major epidemiological studies in humans, while complex and sometimes yielding mixed results, has largely not found consistent or convincing evidence of a causal link between aspartame consumption at typical levels and cancer.

2.3 Toxicological Studies and Animal Models

Toxicological studies involve exposing animals to varying doses of a substance to determine its potential for harm.

• Carcinogenicity Studies: Numerous long-term carcinogenicity studies in rodents have been conducted on aspartame. The vast majority of these studies have found no evidence that aspartame causes cancer in animals, even at doses far exceeding typical human consumption levels (Magnuson et al., 2007).
• Metabolism and Breakdown Products: Research has focused on the breakdown products of aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine, methanol). These components are naturally present in many foods and are metabolized by the body. Studies have shown that the levels of these breakdown products from aspartame consumption are well within safe physiological limits (Butchko et al., 2002).
• Mechanistic Studies: Investigations into potential mechanisms by which aspartame might cause harm have not yielded consistent evidence of genotoxicity (damage to DNA) or other mechanisms that would support a carcinogenic effect at relevant human exposure levels.

2.4 Regulatory Body Assessments and the 2023 WHO/IARC Classification

The safety of aspartame has been continuously reviewed by international and national regulatory bodies:

• JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives): JECFA is responsible for conducting risk assessments of food additives. Since its initial evaluation in 1981, JECFA has repeatedly reviewed aspartame and maintained its ADI of 0-40 mg/kg body weight, concluding that there is no convincing evidence of adverse effects, including cancer, within this limit (WHO, 2023b).
• IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): IARC’s role is to identify cancer hazards, not to conduct risk assessments (which involve considering exposure levels). In July 2023, IARC classified aspartame as Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans (WHO, 2023a). This classification means there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It’s a hazard identification, indicating a potential for cancer, but not quantifying the risk at typical exposure levels. For context, Group 2B also includes substances like aloe vera whole leaf extract, traditional Asian pickled vegetables, and even working as a firefighter.
• FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration): Following IARC’s classification, the FDA reiterated its long-standing position that aspartame is safe for the general population when used within the ADI. The FDA stated that IARC’s conclusion does not mean aspartame is actually linked to cancer, as the evidence is limited (FDA, 2023).
• EFSA (European Food Safety Authority): EFSA conducted one of the most comprehensive risk assessments of aspartame in 2013, reviewing all available scientific data. It concluded that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe at current exposure levels and maintained the ADI of 40 mg/kg body weight per day (EFSA, 2013). EFSA also reviewed the Ramazzini studies and found methodological flaws.

The 2023 IARC classification, while scientifically distinct from JECFA’s risk assessment, caused considerable public confusion. IARC identifies potential hazards, while JECFA evaluates risk based on exposure levels. The consensus among major food safety authorities remains that aspartame is safe within the established ADI.

3. Methodology

This paper employs a secondary research methodology, systematically reviewing and synthesizing existing academic literature, reports from international health organizations, food safety authorities, and reputable online sources. The aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of the scientific evidence regarding the alleged link between artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame, and cancer, with a specific focus on its public health implications within the African context.

The research process involved the following steps:

1. Literature Search Strategy: A comprehensive search was conducted across various electronic databases and platforms, including PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and the official websites of key regulatory and health organizations (e.g., WHO, IARC, JECFA, FDA, EFSA). Key search terms included: “aspartame cancer,” “artificial sweeteners carcinogenicity,” “non-nutritive sweeteners safety,” “aspartame controversy,” “IARC aspartame,” “JECFA aspartame,” “food additives Africa,” “dietary patterns Africa sweeteners,” “food regulation Africa,” and “public perception aspartame.”
2. Source Selection Criteria: Emphasis was placed on recent publications (primarily from 2000 onwards, with a strong preference for the last decade) to capture contemporary research and regulatory assessments. Foundational toxicological and epidemiological studies on aspartame were also included. Preference was given to peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and official reports from authoritative international and national food safety bodies. Studies discussing food consumption patterns, regulatory environments, and public health communication in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Africa, were prioritized to ensure contextual relevance.
3. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Information was extracted regarding the design, findings, and limitations of key studies (epidemiological and toxicological) on aspartame and cancer. Details of regulatory assessments, including ADI levels and rationales for conclusions, were also collected. Specific attention was paid to data on artificial sweetener consumption trends, food regulatory frameworks, and public health communication challenges within African countries. This extracted information was then critically analyzed, categorized, and synthesized to identify overarching themes, areas of scientific consensus, points of controversy, and significant gaps in the existing knowledge base, particularly concerning the African context.
4. Thematic Analysis: A thematic analysis approach was used to identify key areas of discussion, including the scientific evidence, regulatory perspectives, and the implications for public health and policy. This involved grouping similar findings from different sources to build a coherent narrative on the aspartame controversy and its relevance to African populations.
5. Contextualization for Africa: Throughout the synthesis and discussion, a conscious effort was made to contextualize the findings within the African socio-economic, cultural, and regulatory landscape. This involved highlighting specific challenges (e.g., data scarcity, regulatory capacity), unique opportunities, and relevant policy implications for the region, ensuring the paper’s direct applicability to its target audience.

It is important to note that as a secondary research paper, the findings are a distillation of previously published research. While efforts were made to include diverse and reputable sources, the conclusions drawn are dependent on the quality and scope of the original studies. No new empirical data was collected for this study.

4. Results and Discussion: The Aspartame Controversy and African Implications

The ongoing debate surrounding aspartame’s safety, particularly its alleged link to cancer, highlights a significant challenge in public health communication and risk perception. While major regulatory bodies maintain its safety within established limits, the IARC classification has complicated the narrative, especially in regions like Africa where food safety oversight and public health literacy may vary.

4.1 Scientific Consensus vs. Public Perception

A key finding from the literature is the divergence between the scientific consensus on aspartame’s safety (within ADI) and widespread public concern. Regulatory bodies like JECFA, FDA, and EFSA, which conduct comprehensive risk assessments, conclude that the evidence does not support a causal link between aspartame and cancer at typical consumption levels (EFSA, 2013; FDA, 2023; WHO, 2023b). Their evaluations consider all available data, including human and animal studies, and establish safe intake levels. The IARC classification as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) is a hazard identification based on limited evidence, not a risk assessment that considers typical exposure. This nuance is often lost in media reporting and public discourse, leading to alarm. For instance, the public often equates “possibly carcinogenic” with “causes cancer,” which is an oversimplification of IARC’s categorization. This misinterpretation can lead to unnecessary fear and distrust in food safety authorities, potentially prompting consumers to revert to higher sugar consumption, which carries its own well-established health risks (WHO, 2023c).

4.2 Consumption Patterns of Artificial Sweeteners in Africa

While specific, granular data on aspartame consumption in diverse African countries is limited, general trends suggest a rising intake of artificial sweeteners. This is primarily driven by:

• Increased Availability of Processed Foods: Urbanization, changing lifestyles, and globalization have led to a surge in the availability and consumption of imported and locally manufactured processed foods and beverages, many of which contain artificial sweeteners as sugar substitutes (Popkin et al., 2012). This includes diet sodas, sweetened yogurts, confectionery, and various packaged snacks.
• Growth of Local Food Industry: As local food and beverage industries expand, they often adopt ingredients and formulations common in global markets, including artificial sweeteners, to meet consumer demand for lower-sugar options or to reduce production costs.
• Rising NCD Burden: The increasing prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes across Africa (WHO, 2021a) leads to a greater demand for sugar-free or low-sugar products, inadvertently increasing exposure to artificial sweeteners.
• Informal Markets: A significant portion of food consumption in Africa occurs through informal markets and street vendors, making it challenging to track the presence and consumption of food additives.

Understanding these consumption patterns is crucial for assessing potential public health impacts and designing effective interventions.

4.3 Regulatory Landscape and Challenges in Africa

The regulatory response to food additives like aspartame in Africa is varied and often faces significant challenges:

• Reliance on International Standards: Many African national food safety authorities rely heavily on assessments and recommendations from international bodies like JECFA, WHO, FDA, and EFSA due to limited local capacity for independent toxicological research and risk assessment. This reliance is generally a sound public health strategy, but it also means that international controversies directly impact local policy discussions.
• Varied Enforcement Capacity: While regulations may exist, the capacity for enforcement (e.g., routine food product testing, monitoring of import standards, penalizing non-compliance) varies significantly across countries. This can lead to inconsistencies in food safety oversight.
• Harmonization Challenges: A lack of harmonized food additive regulations across African regional blocs (e.g., ECOWAS, SADC, EAC) can complicate trade and allow products with varying safety standards to circulate.
• Resource Constraints: Limited financial resources, trained personnel, and laboratory infrastructure often hinder robust food safety surveillance and rapid response to emerging concerns.

The IARC classification of aspartame highlights the need for African regulatory bodies to not only understand the scientific nuances but also to have the capacity to communicate effectively with their populations and adapt policies if new, compelling evidence emerges.

4.4 Public Health Messaging and Trust in Africa

Communicating complex scientific information about food additives to the public, especially in diverse African contexts, is challenging:

• Health Literacy Levels: Varying levels of health literacy and scientific understanding can make it difficult for the public to grasp the nuances of risk assessment versus hazard identification.
• Role of Traditional Beliefs: Traditional beliefs about food and health can sometimes influence perceptions of modern food additives, potentially leading to skepticism or misinterpretation of scientific advice.
• Misinformation and Social Media: The rapid spread of misinformation through social media and informal networks can quickly erode public trust in official health advice.
• Building Trust: Transparent and consistent communication from trusted sources (e.g., national health ministries, reputable local health experts) is crucial. Messaging should be clear, concise, culturally sensitive, and address common misconceptions directly. It should also emphasize the overall importance of a balanced diet and reduced consumption of ultra-processed foods, regardless of sweetener content.

4.5 Implications for the Food Industry in Africa

The aspartame controversy has direct implications for the food and beverage industry operating in Africa:

• Formulation Changes: Manufacturers, both multinational and local, may face pressure to reformulate products to remove aspartame or switch to alternative sweeteners, even if regulatory bodies maintain its safety. This can incur significant research and development costs.
• Consumer Demand Shifts: Public concern can lead to shifts in consumer demand towards “aspartame-free” or “sugar-free with natural sweeteners” products, impacting market share.
• Transparency and Labeling: Increased scrutiny may lead to greater demand for transparent labeling of ingredients and clearer communication from manufacturers about their use of sweeteners.
• Investment in Local Alternatives: The controversy could spur investment in research and development of local, natural sweetener alternatives (e.g., stevia from local cultivation) that are perceived as safer by consumers and align with local agricultural development goals.

Ultimately, navigating the aspartame controversy in Africa requires a collaborative effort between scientific bodies, regulatory authorities, public health communicators, and the food industry to ensure that dietary advice is evidence-based, culturally appropriate, and promotes optimal public health outcomes.

5. Conclusion

The debate surrounding the safety of artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame, and its alleged link to cancer, highlights the complexities of food safety science and public health communication in a globalized world. While major international food safety authorities, including JECFA, FDA, and EFSA, have consistently affirmed aspartame’s safety within established acceptable daily intake levels based on extensive scientific evidence, the recent IARC classification as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” has reignited public concern. It is crucial to understand the distinction between hazard identification (IARC’s role) and risk assessment (JECFA’s role); the latter indicates that typical exposure levels are not associated with a quantifiable risk of cancer.

For the African continent, the implications of this controversy are significant. With rising consumption of processed foods containing artificial sweeteners and varying capacities in food safety oversight, there is an urgent need for proactive measures. Key strategies include strengthening national food safety surveillance systems, fostering harmonized regional regulations, and developing clear, culturally sensitive public health communication strategies to address misinformation and build trust. The food industry also faces pressure to adapt formulations and enhance transparency.

Ultimately, ensuring public health and safety regarding food additives like aspartame in Africa requires a concerted effort. This involves continued reliance on robust scientific evidence from comprehensive risk assessments, coupled with transparent and effective communication that empowers consumers to make informed dietary choices. While the scientific consensus points to the safety of aspartame within ADI, the broader conversation should also encourage a balanced diet, reduced consumption of ultra-processed foods, and a focus on whole, unprocessed foods, which remains the cornerstone of good nutrition and long-term health across the continent. Future research should prioritize localized studies on sweetener consumption patterns and health outcomes in diverse African populations to inform context-specific policies.

6. References

African Development Bank Group. (2023). African Economic Outlook 2023: The Digital Transformation of Africa. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: African Development Bank Group. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/african-economic-outlook-2023-digital-transformation-africa

Butchko, H. H., Kotsonis, W. W., & Stargel, A. W. (2002). Aspartame: Review of Safety. CRC Press. (Note: This is a book, no specific DOI/URL for this edition, but widely available)

Debras, C., Chazelas, E., Srour, B., Druesne-Pecollo, N., Esseddik, Y., de Edelenyi, F. S., … & Touvier, M. (2022). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 19(3), e1003950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2013). Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of aspartame (E 951) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 11(12), 3565. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3565

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2023). Additional Information about High-Intensity Sweeteners Permitted for Use in Food in the United States. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/additional-information-about-high-intensity-sweeteners-permitted-use-food-united-states

JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). (1981). Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants (Twenty-fifth report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). WHO Technical Report Series, No. 669. WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41724

Lim, U., Subar, A. F., Mouw, T., Hartge, P., Morton, L. M., Levine, P. H., … & Freedman, N. D. (2006). Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain cancers. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 15(9), 1654-1659. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0275

Magnuson, B. A., Burdock, G. A., Doull, J., Roberts, A., Williams, G. M., & Woods, L. (2007). Aspartame: A comprehensive review of its safety and regulatory issues. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 37(8), 629-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440701516184

Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., & Ng, S. W. (2012). Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00456.x

Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Degli Esposti, D., & Lambertini, L. (2005). First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(9), 1184-1189. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7719

Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Manservisi, F., Panzacchi, E. A., & Maltoni, C. (2007). Response to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinions on the Ramazzini Foundation studies on aspartame. European Journal of Oncology, 12(4), 237-248. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18027733/

World Health Organization (WHO). (2021a). Global report on diabetes. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565257

World Health Organization (WHO). (2023a). Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released. WHO. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released

World Health Organization (WHO). (2023b). Aspartame: What are the health implications?. WHO. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/aspartame-what-are-the-health-implications

World Health Organization (WHO). (2023c). WHO guideline on non-sugar sweeteners. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073623