French translation

The Risk-Monger watched the WHO-JECFA-IARC press conference on aspartame today. Since a large number of activist groups will spin hard to push their interests, here are 12 observations to keep in mind while you suffer through the false reporting (lies) broadcasted by the ideologues and food zealots. See the full press conference here.

• There is no change in the WHO aspartame acceptable daily intake (ADI) recommendations (40 mg/kg body weight per day). The new research studies released in the last years were limited and insufficient for the WHO to consider adjusting their exposure limits.
• It was made very clear at the press conference that consumers should not have reason to worry about the health risks tied to aspartame.
• The IARC monograph concluded that aspartame is a possible carcinogen (Group 2B) meaning that the research was limited and could not conclude with confidence that the substance was carcinogenic. It only ticked three of Ramazzini’s 10 Key Characteristics.
• IARC’s monograph focused on three studies tied to the possible link to liver cancer.
• The Ramazzini aspartame studies were not mentioned during the press conference but were cited heavily in the IARC Lancet publication.
• The NutriNet-Santé study was considered to have significant limitations.
• Francesco Branca, WHO’s Director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety, tried to reiterate the WHO’s earlier advice that drinking water was better than soft drinks with either sugar or aspartame, but this is not news (regardless if the mainstream media will run with that as the key headline from the press conference).
• JECFA reiterated that the present ADI levels would allow the average consumer to drink up to 14 cans of aspartame-sweetened soda per day with no risk of negative health issues.
• JECFA acknowledged that there were no other health risks identified from the consumption of aspartame within the ADI.
• The acting head of IARC’s monograph programme, Mary Schubauer-Berigan, was quiet for most of the press conference, accepted that the WHO’s JECFA was running the show, accepted the JECFA assertions that there was not enough evidence to change the classifications and recognised that the IARC hazard assessment was only the first step in the risk assessment process. The most she could say is that the scientific community will have to provide better research.
• The journalists allowed to ask questions at the press conference did not challenge the panel or grill IARC on the conflicts of interest of several working group members. There were no questions on whether IARC’s Group 2B classification would be enough for US tort law firms to sue Coca-Cola.
• The Reuters journalist who leaked the IARC results was not allowed to ask a question until the very end. That will teach her to mess with the UN.

So there was nothing new from the recent publications and campaigns, no clear link to cancer and no change in the acceptable daily intake levels for the consumption of aspartame.

“JECFA also considered the evidence on cancer risk, in animal and human studies, and concluded that the evidence of an association between aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing,” said Dr Moez Sanaa, WHO’s Head of the Standards and Scientific Advice on Food and Nutrition Unit.

IARC-JECFA joint press release

Whom among us actually thinks these facts will have any influence on how this news will be reported, how interest groups like NGOs and US tort law firms will spin the findings and how the campaign against this alternative to sugar will rage on.

Let’s be realistic: with activist campaigns, these facts don’t matter.