---
title: "Aspartame in Another 'Cancer Scare': Will It Be Abandoned?"
description: "The article discusses the recent WHO/IARC assessment on aspartame, which classified it as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' while reaffirming the acceptable daily intake. It analyzes the risks and benefits of aspartame, the competitive dynamics in the sweetener market, and whether aspartame will be replaced, concluding that while consumer awareness is rising, aspartame's cost and taste advantages may keep it in use for now."
author: "田静"
publisher: "New Distribution"
email: "zhaobo258@gmail.com"
telephone: "+8615854817671"
published: "2023-07-14"
language: "en"
canonical: "https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/aspartame-in-another-cancer-scare-will-it-be-abandoned-8ecf7d88/"
markdown: "https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/aspartame-in-another-cancer-scare-will-it-be-abandoned-8ecf7d88.md"
original_source: "https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eheAsqFBhi0PyzJ80kLAIA"
translation: "https://xinjignxiao.com/zh/articles/%E9%98%BF%E6%96%AF%E5%B7%B4%E7%94%9C%E5%86%8D%E9%99%B7-%E8%87%B4%E7%99%8C%E9%A3%8E%E6%B3%A2-%E6%88%96%E5%B0%86%E8%A2%AB%E6%8A%9B%E5%BC%83-8ecf7d88.md"
attribution: "New Distribution — https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/aspartame-in-another-cancer-scare-will-it-be-abandoned-8ecf7d88/"
usage_policy: "https://xinjignxiao.com/ai-policy.txt"
---

# Aspartame in Another 'Cancer Scare': Will It Be Abandoned?

> The article discusses the recent WHO/IARC assessment on aspartame, which classified it as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' while reaffirming the acceptable daily intake. It analyzes the risks and benefits of aspartame, the competitive dynamics in the sweetener market, and whether aspartame will be replaced, concluding that while consumer awareness is rising, aspartame's cost and taste advantages may keep it in use for now.

**Introduction: No absolute safety, only relative safety.**

**Author** 丨Tian Jing  **Review** 丨Gou Gou  **Layout** 丨He Wen

In an era of scarcity, sugar was a luxury; in an era of abundance, sugar is an emotional release. Thus, the craving for sweets is human nature. Any attempt to suppress nature is unreasonable, so various beverages claiming to be "zero-calorie" have emerged. Recently, controversy over aspartame has escalated, and at a higher level, it concerns the health effects of sugar substitutes, which have been debated for years. In this controversy, there are losers, beneficiaries, and promoters.

**Aspartame: Angel or Satan?**

On July 14, the testing and risk assessment results for aspartame arrived as scheduled. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) released their latest assessment report on the health effects of the non-sugar sweetener aspartame. The report states: **IARC, citing "limited evidence" for carcinogenicity in humans, classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans, while JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg per kilogram of body weight.**

There are two key pieces of information: one is "possibly," and the other is the maximum intake level. The result was expected. Why? Everything is relative; discussing toxicity without considering dosage is unreasonable. How risky are sugar substitutes like aspartame? Let's break it down.

**First-level logic: from the consumer's perspective.** Dozens of sugar substitutes are still on the WHO food additives list and in the FDA and Chinese food additive standards. Any sugar substitute additive has a concept of median lethal dose (LD50). A fraction (1/100 to 1/10) of the LD50 is the minimum amount that produces measurable harm after a single dose. Dividing that by 100 generally sets the upper limit for daily intake. Therefore, each sugar substitute has a recommended daily intake per kilogram of body weight.

**Second-level logic: from a scientific research perspective.** Of course, sugar substitutes have some harm, but they are not absolutely dangerous. First, based on the first-level logic, as long as intake is within the set safety limit, there is no problem. For example, consider the secondary conclusion that diet drinks increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. Some studies say long-term consumption of diet drinks raises the incidence by 58%. But that is only a correlation statistic: they compared two groups with different drinking habits and observed changes in type 2 diabetes incidence. Even if one group has a higher incidence, it does not prove that sugar substitutes caused it. In short, sugar substitutes have a risk of causing disease, but if disease occurs, it is not necessarily caused by sugar substitutes. Any sugar substitute has a mechanism of action as a single substance, but the harm from overconsumption is no different from the harm of overconsuming traditional oil, salt, soy sauce, and vinegar. This answers the question: Is aspartame an angel or a Satan? As the WHO risk assessment report indicates, it has carcinogenic risk, so it is Satan; but if controlled within safe dosage, it is an angel.

This also gives many companies room for profit. With improved technology, various sugars can be refined for sweetness. On the market, besides raw sugars like sucrose, maltose, and fructose, other products are called sugar substitutes, including starch sugars, artificial sugars, and natural sugars. In fact, aspartame and its rivals all belong to the category of sugar substitutes.

According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences' "2021 China Sugar-Free Beverage Market Trend Insight Report," from 2014 to 2020, China's sugar-free beverage market grew from 1.66 billion yuan to 11.78 billion yuan, with a compound annual growth rate of 38.6%. According to estimates by Zheshang Securities Research Institute, by 2030, the domestic sugar substitute industry market size, only in beverages and baking, may reach 14 billion yuan, with an average annual compound growth rate of about 30%. This data also indicates that artificial sweeteners, because of the highest "sweetness-to-price ratio," have become the first choice for many manufacturers. It is 2-16 times that of natural sweeteners and 35-48 times that of sugar alcohols. In experts' eyes, "compared with natural sweeteners, aspartame has lower production costs and more mature technology, better meeting industrial production needs." So, compared with sucrose, aspartame is sweeter; compared with other sugar substitutes, aspartame is cheaper, making it the most cost-effective sweetener. Undeniably, companies need growth and profit, and ensuring maximum profit within safety limits is the primary mission of all enterprises. This aspartame incident, while sounding an alarm, also gives some companies an opening.

**Who benefits from aspartame?**

Aspartame remains a hot topic. Besides high attention from end consumers, many emerging companies are following the trend, stirring public food safety nerves, and more brands are stepping up. "Sugar-free," "zero sugar," and "0 sucrose" have become magnifiers for brand marketing. Is it really 0 added? But sugar as an additive is everywhere, whether it's aspartame, erythritol, or other sugar substitutes. In fact, the secret in the "sugar coating" is nothing more than these "sweet burdens" meeting consumers' anti-natural demand of "having it all," thus becoming a battleground for various companies.

As the most prominent users of aspartame, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are caught in the controversy. It is worth noting that these two cola giants have remained unshakable for a century, despite encirclement from sparkling water, domestic soda, and other companies. Notably, as early as 2015, PepsiCo was embroiled in an aspartame "cancer" controversy and announced it would abandon aspartame in its Diet products, but this adjustment only applied to the U.S. market, not the Chinese market. In 2022, a French observational study of 100,000 adults showed that high intake of artificial sweeteners (including aspartame) was associated with a slight increase in cancer risk. The risk is known, but it still hasn't shaken the position of the two colas, and in recent years, they have even been on an upward trend in the Chinese market.

But besides the two colas, many other companies are competing among sugar substitutes. The controversy over aspartame has escalated into competition between companies. Emerging companies are using this to break through and besiege traditional companies. In current public opinion, aspartame's rivals are seen as potential beneficiaries. On June 30, A-share stocks of erythritol and other sugar substitutes surged. The former is an industrial sweetener, the latter a natural sweetener. Thus, a battle between "artificial" and "natural" has begun.

Genki Forest's official Weibo stated: All Genki Forest products do not contain aspartame. In the tea beverage market, Heytea and Naixue also "proved their innocence." Naixue's Tea announced that all products use upgraded natural sweetener "monk fruit sugar." It is reported that monk fruit is a medicinal and edible plant native to China, and its extract "mogroside" is a natural sweet substance.

Image source: Genki Forest official Weibo

A-share companies, including Chenguang Biotech, Baolingbao, Shandong Sanyuan Biotechnology, Asia Aroma, Guangzhou Lonkey, Ande, LAIX, Jiajia Food, Ganyuan Foods, Huazi Industry, and others, have since June 29 issued announcements or statements saying their products do not involve aspartame.

This forms a clear chain of contempt. Represented by aspartame, erythritol, saccharin, steviol glycosides, etc., competition in the upstream market is fierce, with some product prices falling all the way, and even star companies are hard pressed to avoid decline. In contrast, in the end consumer market, many food companies face the high cost of natural sweeteners, and more cost-effective artificial sweeteners remain their first choice. But whether artificial or natural sugar substitutes, it will definitely be a process of one rising while the other falls. Ultimately, **it is about weighing the pros and cons of cost and safety to find the optimal solution that the market can accept and recognize.** There are no absolute beneficiaries; the industry needs a healthy competitive environment, and all competition is based on a controllable safety red line. In this world, **there is no absolute safety, only relative safety.**

**Why do "aspartames" exist?**

So, how big will the ripples of this incident be? In fact, the aspartame incident is neither the pioneer nor the terminator. There were trans fatty acids and erythritol before, and later Xin Jifei's "technology and ruthlessness" incident. Each incident is a process of consumer education and awareness. From the ingredient lists that no one paid attention to in the past to the current "ingredient list anxiety," both C-end consumers and B-end manufacturers are leaning in this direction. The simpler the ingredient list, the more popular it is. For example, when picking up a product, an ingredient list with one line of text is more likely to be bought than one with three lines. The fewer additives in the ingredient list, the more popular it is. In nutrition facts tables, many products will mark "0 trans fatty acids" or "0 additives." I believe many people have noticed that more and more products on supermarket shelves have the "0 added" label, and even on product packaging, a big "0" occupies half of the packaging, making the communication purpose clear at a glance.

In China, attention to ingredient lists has only been emphasized in the past two years. In fact, as early as 2019, Singapore's beverage grading system had already appeared, a place where diabetics account for 1/9 of the total population. According to Singapore's standards, beverages are divided into four grades, A, B, C, and D. Beverages marked C and D are no longer recommended for purchase. The government mandates that these two grades have labels printed on the bottle, similar to cigarettes that must print "harmful to health," and D-grade beverages cannot even have advertisements. So, can C and D grade beverages not be drunk? Not exactly. This standard is not a prohibition but a notification, just like cigarettes, where every pack has a label: Smoking is harmful to health. This product transparency action gives consumers the right to know and choose independently. After all, most consumers are not clear about the real effects of various additives.

So, this aspartame incident has deepened C-end consumers' awareness of healthy products. Since there are safety risks, why are they still widely used by companies? Since risks are communicated, why do many consumers still choose to ignore them? Like alcohol and cigarettes, even though we know alcohol harms the liver and smoking harms the lungs, many people still enjoy them. There is a Chinese idiom: sugar-coated bullets. The implication is that "the sugar coating contains bullets." If you want the "sugar coating," you have to bear the "bullets" it brings. This also forces companies to meet consumers' "have it all" demands. **Since the C-end has "anti-natural demands," the B-end will have "anti-natural supply."** Of course, the premise is within the safety red line.

**Will aspartame be abandoned?**

Indeed, consumers' "have it all" demand will exist for a long time and continue to rise, so B-end supply will also continue. Before the July 14 aspartame assessment report was released, aspartame was widely debated and hyped, once occupying the hot search list, with spoilers and interest promoters among them. When the heat fades, where will aspartame go? Now that the WHO has issued the risk assessment report, will it be replaced in the future? With these two questions, we analyze from two angles.

**1. Cost perspective** Theoretically, when one sweetener cannot be used, manufacturers can switch to another. Compared with natural sugar substitutes, aspartame is widely used because of its high sweetness and low synthesis cost, which gives it great commercial value and promotes its widespread use in food additives. In contrast, natural sugar substitutes are considered safer, but because their production costs, technology, and cycles are more complex than aspartame, the extent to which they can replace aspartame remains to be seen.

**2. Product taste** Compared with sucrose, aspartame has a clean, sucrose-like sweetness. It does not have the bitter or metallic aftertaste typical of artificial sweeteners. This is an important advantage of aspartame. In foods and soft drinks, aspartame is usually 180-220 times sweeter than sucrose. Moreover, the relative sweetness of aspartame is negatively correlated with the concentration of reference sucrose and varies with different flavor systems, pH, mouthfeel temperature, and the concentration of sucrose or other sugars.

So, overall, aspartame has better stability, higher sweetness, lower cost, and, crucially, is closer to sucrose taste. It is indeed a very cost-effective sweetener. If replaced, manufacturers would face cost increases of more than 10% and greater challenges in product R&D capabilities. But the WHO has clearly issued a risk assessment report that aspartame may be carcinogenic, which has also become a political wind direction. With the support of the political wind, a major trend is set: sugar control is a global trend, not just in Singapore. It is also a reminder to the industry: in the future, C-end consumers will pay more attention to ingredient lists. On the B-end, whether distributors or brand owners, they will be more cautious in products, and health is the general trend. Aspartame will gradually be abandoned by consumers until it disappears from the sugar substitute camp. **I believe soon, we will see "0 aspartame added" labels on shelves.**


---

## Copyright and AI use

This article is sourced from New Distribution. Search, quotation, summarization, and model training are permitted, but every use must credit New Distribution and retain the canonical source URL.

Contact: zhaobo258@gmail.com · +86 158 5481 7671